Tolman Hall Seismic Replacement - Berkeley Way University of California, Berkeley

Project No. 12629A

ADDENDUM NO. 3 to the CM/GMP Bidding Documents March 19, 2015 The following clarifications, changes, additions, or deletions shall be made to the following documents as indicated and shall be a part thereof as if originally specified and/or shown. All other conditions remain the same. Question #1: Comprehensive set of specifications to assist in generating that I-GMP

Clarification/Response Not Available

#2:

Clarify LEED requirements for the project

Exhibit 17, Gold LEED

#3:

Please clarify what floors the I-GMP should include for Core & Shell plus build-out.

Floors 1 & 2, Alternate: 3, 4 and 5

#4:

Please clarify what floors should have their build-out be included as an alternate.

Alternate: 3, 4 and 5

#5:

Please confirm that each Bidder’s numerator of their Best Value Score will be determined by multiplying each of their respective %’s from their Bid Form against a common Lump Sum cost of the project, to be provided by the University. Otherwise, if each Bidder’s Lump Sum cost is used to help generate the numerator, a Bidder could potentially provide an intentionally low Lump Sum cost of the project, and artificially drive down their cost per quality point.

Numerator is the total of percentages on Bid Form

#6:

Reference the Preliminary DD HVAC Systems Analysis. This document analyzes two typical HVAC options for use at Berkeley Way, however, there is no mention of which should be included to generate the Bidder’s RFP response.

Use Option 3B

#7:

Please confirm that a UFAD system (in lieu of a VAV system) should be used to generate the Bidder's RFP response.

Confirmed

#8:

Is the alternate pricing for floors 3-5 to be based upon drawing A-104 – Floor Plan – Level 4 Tenant Plan Neighborhood Option included in the RFP package?

Yes

#9:

Are floors 6-8 to be cold shell or warm shell spaces?

Cold

#10: Question B.2.c of the Best Value Questionnaire asks for an alternate for exceeding Title 24 by 20%. What information are we to use in order to price this alternate? Will the pricing spreadsheet be modified in order to show this alternate pricing?

Spreadsheet has not been modified. Using best professional opinion, provide Alternate on Questionnaire

#11: Best Value Questionnaire Paragraph III.B.4.b references Design Development documents issued in this RFP. The documents included in the RFP are not noted as Design Development. Where can we access the Design Development documents?

No DD available, only SD

Addendum No. 3 Page 1 of 106

Tolman Hall Seismic Replacement - Berkeley Way University of California, Berkeley #12:

Where can we access the Revit model?

Project No. 12629A Please see attached file: BWP-CS-AR.rvt

#13: Best Value Questionnaire Paragraph III.B.2.b states the Base budget shall be Core and Shell plus floors 1 & 3. We assume this should state Floors 1 & 2. Please confirm.

Yes

#14: When will the interviews be held?

Interviews will be held on afternoon of nd rd April 2 and morning of April 3 . Bidders will be notified shortly of their firm’s time/date. Please see attached file: Berkeley Way Sheet Index in Excel/pdf

#15: Please confirm that the drawings provided with the RFQ are dated 1/15/15 and consist of the following 21ea sheets: cover sheet, vicinity map, shadow study, landscape plan, site plan, floor plan level 1, floor plan level 2, floor plan level 3, floor plan level 4, floor plan level 5, floor plan level 6, floor plan level 7, floor plan level 8, floor plan mechanical penthouse, building sections, west elevation, south elevation, east elevation, north elevation, contextual elevations, and exterior materials. #16: Please confirm that the supplemental drawings provided within the RFP are dated 3/6/15 and supersede those drawings issued on 1/15/15, where applicable, and consist of the following 14ea sheets: cover sheet, A-101, A-102, A-104, A-109, S-102, S-103, S-104, S-105, S106, S-107, S-108, S-109, and S-210.

See response to Question #15

#17: Please provide RCP's to understand ceiling finishes, heights, etc.

Not available. Please reference design narrative. Ceiling in open office area will have exposed concrete with Class A finish. Surface will be painted Design meets baseline

#18: Please advise if there are any areas of exposed concrete, and if so, what the finish should be. #19: Should we assume the assessment administered by Interface Engineering met the Budget Alternate for exceeding Title 24 by 20%, or just baseline Title 24 requirements? #20: Please clarify the exact scope of build-out to be provided in the Alternate pricing for L3-5 (for example, I'd like to understand whether the bathrooms on these floors are part of the core-and-shell buildout, or whether they should be included within the Alternate buildout)

#21: RFP – Instructions to Bidders Paragraph 3.6.2 states a copy of the full UCIP policy is available for review at the website identified in the UCIP Manual and that the user name and password will be provided to potential bidders at the pre-bid conference. We could not find the website address in the UCIP Manual, nor did we receive the user name and password at the prebid. Please provide the website address, user name and password.

The current plan for Core and Shell package would include building structure, exterior cladding and doors, egress stairs, elevators, mechanical penthouses and shafts, and restroom cores. WRNS is open to discussion on packages breakdown or number with the selected builder to achieve schedule benefits. Please see Section III, General Conditions, Exhibits 1A, 1C and 1D

Addendum No. 3 Page 2 of 106

Tolman Hall Seismic Replacement - Berkeley Way University of California, Berkeley #22: RFP – Instructions to Bidders Paragraph 3.6.1 states a summary of the provisions of the Builder’s Risk policy is provided as an exhibit to the contract. We cannot find this exhibit. Please provide. #23: Is the full Builder’s Risk policy available for review on a website? If so, please provide website address, user name and password. If not, how may we get a copy?

Project No. 12629A INSERT “Exhibit 15 Summary of Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy” on the Exhibits Index AND INSERT attached Summary of Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy” (13 pages) See response to #22.

#24: Exhibit 18 shows Temporary Utilities Consumption Fees to be included in the GC/GRs Included in Option Sum Phase 2. However per 01520 – 2.4.A.1 & 2.9.A, this is provided by the University. Please confirm utility consumption fees will be provided by the University. (It is difficult to price the cost of this until the unit rates for the utilities are known, and the subcontractors have been selected and given their input on usage. This is typically set up as an Allowance if the Owner is not providing.)

Provide an Allowance in I-GMP budget

#25: What is meant by Temporary Weather Controls noted in Exhibit 18 to be included in the GC/GRs Included in Option Sum Phase 2? Would this refer to items such as dewatering footing excavations during heavy rains? Should this be set up as an Allowance rather than a fixed price, as it is impossible to know how weather might affect the construction at this time?

Provide fixed price based on bidder’s experience

#26: Please confirm that the Progressive Cleanup items noted in Exhibit 18 to be included in the GC/GRs Included in Option Sum Phase 2 only refer to cleanup that is unidentifiable to a specific subcontractor, and that the CM/Contractor will be able to hold the subcontractors responsible for their own cleanup.

Confirmed

#27: Please confirm that the Forklift + fuel and operator noted in Exhibit 18 to be included in the GC/GRs Included in Option Sum Phase 2 is only for material handling by CM/Contractor, and that subcontractors will be providing their own forklifts as applicable.

Confirmed

#28: There are several items regarding SWPPP (Storm water pollution prevention – Management; Management: compliance, reporting, etc.; Swppp labor; Swppp material) noted in Exhibit 18 to be included in the GC/GRs Included in Option Sum Phase 2. Since the SWPP Plan will be developed during preconstruction, these costs will be most economically priced after the plan has been developed and approved. Can these items be deferred and priced during the Trade Package bidding?

Yes can be a trade package

#29: Is the Geotechnical report available? If so, how do we get access?

Concept Level Draft Geotechnical Report dated 2/27/14 prepared by A3GEO is attached hereto (89 pages)

Addendum No. 3 Page 3 of 106

Tolman Hall Seismic Replacement - Berkeley Way University of California, Berkeley

Project No. 12629A

#30: Several options for the mechanical system are listed in the HVAC narrative. What shall we use as the baseline for the project budget?

Use Option 3B

#31: When is the anticipated Notice to Proceed for Phase 1?

NTP will be mid-April 2015

#32: Should the estimate for the building core include full build out of the toilet rooms, elevator core, stair shafts, elect/IT/storage rooms and mechanical shafts on ALL FLOORS? If yes:

Do not include Storage Rooms on L 6-8, include all other items noted.

A)

Should we include access floor, cement board and ceramic tile in all the bathrooms?

Yes

B)

Should we include access floor at the elevator vestibule?

Yes

C)

Should we exclude access floor for the remaining areas on levels 3-8? We would include access floors at the remaining space on floors 3, 4, 5 in the alternate bid.

Correct

#33: For telecom, audio visual and security systems, are we to include infrastructure pathways only or are we to include the full system with wiring, devices, equipment, etc.? #34: Please confirm we are to include a full sound masking system for floors 1 & 2 and for the alternate bid on floors 3, 4, and 5.

For AV include pathway only. For Security include complete system. For Telecom include conduit, fiber, wiring, and equipment in telecom rooms Include in Alternate price for 3-5. Sound masking not required on L1 and L2

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 3

Addendum No. 3 Page 4 of 106

Exhibit 15

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary This document summarizes the Builder’s Risk policy and is not intended to reflect all the terms, conditions, or exclusions of such policy as of the effective date of coverage. This document is not an insurance policy and does not amend, alter or extend the coverage afforded by the listed policy. The actual insurance policy defines all the terms, exclusions and conditions of coverage, and not this summary. Should any ambiguities or conflicts between the summary and policy exist, the policy terms and conditions will apply. Some Projects may be excluded and/or must be underwritten separately and may be subject to different rates, deductibles, and terms and conditions (see page 13). Therefore, this document should be used as a guideline only.

INSURANCE COMPANY: Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company BEST’S RATING: A+ NAMED INSURED: The Regents of the University of California INSURING AGREEMENT This Policy, subject to the Limit of Liability and the terms, conditions, and limitations contained herein or endorsed hereon, insures against all risks of direct physical loss of or direct physical damage to Insured Property while at the construction site, stored off-site, or in the course of transit within the Territorial Limits specified in the Schedule during the Period of Insurance of each Insured Project. LIMITS OF LIABILITY SCHEDULE OF LIMITS This Company shall not be liable for more than the Limit of Liability as stated on the Certificate of Insurance in any one Occurrence for any one Insured Project, subject to the following limits and sublimits: MASTER POLICY LIMITS $150,000,000 per project, per occurrence $ 25,000,000 per project, Joisted Masonry construction $ 25,000,000 per project, Wood Frame construction NOTE: This Limit of Liability will correspond with the Total Estimated Construction Cost as indicated on the original Builder’s Risk Insurance Application. If the construction costs should increase, the Limit of Liability can be subsequently increased once prior notice has been given by the University’s Representative to Willis Insurance Services of California, Inc.

MBR Coverage Summary

1

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary SUBLIMITS (percentage or dollar value, whichever is less): 1. $25,000,000 for Wood Frame Construction 2. $100,000 for Pollution Cleanup Expenses 3. 15% of the declared estimated Total Project Value, subject to a maximum of $25,000,000 for Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction 4. 25% of the adjusted property damage loss, subject to a maximum of $2,500,000 for Expediting Expense/Extra Expense 5. 10% of the declared estimated Total Project Value, subject to a maximum of $10,000,000 for Insured Property while Stored Off-site 6. 10% of the declared estimated Total Project Value, subject to a maximum of $10,000,000 for Insured Property while in the Course of Inland Transit (continental US) 7. 25% of the declared estimated Total Project Value, subject to a maximum of $25,000,000 for Debris Removal 8. $500,000 for Plans, Blueprints and Specifications 9. $500,000 for Trees, Grass, Shrubbery, Seed and Plants 10. Total Project Value limit for Water Damage (prior sublimit is removed 9/1/14) 11. 10% of estimated Total Project Value, subject to a maximum of $10,000,000 for Frost, Freeze, Falling of Ice (added 9/1/14) 12. 15% of the adjusted property damage loss, subject to a maximum of $10,000,000 for Green/LEED Rating System 13. 10% of the adjusted property damage loss, subject to a maximum of $50,000 for Mold/Fungi 14. 5% of the declared estimated Total Project Value, subject to a maximum of $10,000,000 for additional Architects, Engineering and Professional Fees 15. $100,000 for Claims Preparation Expenses 16. $500,000 for Fire Department Service Charges

MBR Coverage Summary

2

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary TERMS AND CONDITIONS NAMED INSURED The Regents of the University of California and all affiliated and subsidiary companies, corporations, ventures, partnerships or other organizations, all owned, controlled or managed by the Named Insured and all as now exist or may hereafter be constituted or acquired. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS General Contractors, Construction Managers and subcontractors of every tier. Additionally, any other person or entity(ies) as identified on a Project Declaration Endorsement, Quarterly Report Endorsement, or to the extent required by a written contract or agreement. As respects architects, engineers, manufacturers and suppliers, the foregoing is limited to their site activities only. ATTACHMENT/TERMINATION Insurance hereunder applies to all projects specifically declared under the Master Policy in a Quarterly Report Endorsement or in a Project Declaration Endorsement, where the project is scheduled to begin during the term of the Master Policy. The Master Policy term commences on September 1, 2014 at 12:01AM and ends on September 1, 2017 at 12:01AM. Coverage for each Insured Project declared under the Master Policy will go into effect and continue in full force and effect during the Certificate Period specified in the project’s Certificate of Insurance. NOTIFICATION OF COVERAGE/TERMINATION: The Certificate Period will correspond with the Estimated Dates of Commencement and Completion of Work as indicated on the original Builder’s Risk Insurance Application. If construction is not completed on time and coverage beyond the Estimated Date of Completion of Work is required, prior notification must be given by the University Representative to Willis Insurance Services of California, Inc. in order to ensure that coverage remains in force for the project.

DEDUCTIBLES (tiered based on estimated completed Total Project Value at the time of loss) NOTE: The contractor shall be responsible for the deductibles. All Other Perils (except Water Damage; Electrical/Mechanical Breakdown and/or Hot testing) $25,000 for Projects over $2,500,000 $10,000 for Projects under $2,500,000 Water Damage or Frost/Freeze/Falling Ice $100,000 for all projects Electrical/Mechanical Breakdown and/or Hot Testing $50,000 for Projects under $25,000,000 $100,000 for Projects between $25-$100,000,000 $250,000 for Projects between $100-$150,000,000

MBR Coverage Summary

3

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary

EXCLUSIONS PROPERTY EXCLUDED This Policy does not insure: 1.

Land, but this exclusion does not apply to excavation and grading as long as the cost of the excavation and grading is included in the Limit of Liability as stated in the Certificate of Insurance.

2.

Contractor’s plant and equipment, machinery, tools, or property of similar nature not destined to become a permanent part of the Insured Project but this exclusion shall not apply to formwork, fences, shoring, falsework and temporary buildings as long as the value of these items are included in the estimated Limit of Liability as stated in the Certificate of Insurance.

3.

Automobiles or other vehicles, watercraft or aircraft.

4.

Water.

5.

Accounts, bills, currency, deeds, securities, books, records, manuscripts, other similar papers, or data processing media.

6.

Existing buildings or structures or any other existing property.

7.

Owner supplied material, equipment, machinery and supplies, unless the value of such is included in the Limit of Liability as stated in the Certificate of Insurance.

8.

Transmission and/or distribution lines; including wires, cables, poles, towers and all equipment attached thereto beyond 1,000 feet from the perimeter of the project site.

9.

Partially or completely excavated or open trench, pipeline or workface, at any one time beyond 1,000 feet in length.

EXCLUDED CAUSES OF LOSS 1.

Loss or damage caused by, or resulting from, wear and tear, moth, vermin, termites or other insects, inherent vice, latent defect, gradual deterioration, wet or dry rot and rust, corrosion, erosion or normal settling, shrinkage, and/or expansion of buildings and/or foundations.

2.

Any loss of use or occupancy or consequential loss of any nature howsoever caused.

3.

Liquidated damages and/or penalties for delay or detention in connection with guarantees of performance or efficiency.

4.

Hostile or warlike action.

5.

Nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation, or radioactive contamination.

MBR Coverage Summary

4

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary 6.

Any cost or expenses incurred to test for, monitor, or assess the existence, concentration or effects of Fungi.

7.

Loss or damage caused by or resulting from infidelity or dishonesty on the part of the Insured and/or any employee of the Insured; inventory shortage or unexplained disappearance.

8.

Loss or damage caused by or resulting from the enforcement of any ordinance or law, or any order of governmental or municipal authority; by suspension, lapse, termination and/or cancellation of any license, lease, or permit, or any injunction or process of any court, unless otherwise endorsed herein.

9.

Loss or damage caused by, resulting form, contributed to or made worse by actual, alleged, or threatened release, discharge, escape or dispersal of Contaminants and/or Pollutants.

10. Loss or damage to Insured Property while aboard any aircraft or watercraft. 11. The cost of making good faulty or defective workmanship, material, construction, designs, plans and/or specifications unless direct physical loss or direct physical damage not otherwise excluded under this policy ensues and then this Policy will cover such ensuing loss or damage only. 12. Loss, damage, corruption, destruction, distortion, interruption, disruption, erasure, deletion, alteration, loss of use, reduction in functionality, loss of access to, denial of access to or breakdown of Electronic Data from any cause whatsoever. 13. Loss or damage to Used Equipment caused by mechanical and/or electrical breakdown. 14. Loss or damage directly or indirectly caused by, resulting from, contributed to, or aggravated by Land Movement. 15. Loss or damage directly or indirectly caused by, resulting from, contributed to, or aggravated by Flood. 16. Loss or damage covered under any guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, by any manufacturer or supplier whether or not such manufacturer or supplier is an Insured under this policy. 17. Terrorism. 18. Loss or damage arising out of the performance of the professional activities of any consulting engineer, architect, or designer, or any person employed by them or any others whose acts they are legally liable for whether or not named as an Insured under this Policy.

MBR Coverage Summary

5

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary SELECTED EXTENSIONS OF COVERAGE

1.

EXPEDITING/EXTRA EXPENSES Subject to the stated sublimit, this Policy is extended to cover extra charges for overtime, night work, work on public holidays, the extra cost of rental construction equipment, express freight, including air freight all incurred solely: A. to facilitate the repair or replacement of the Insured Property which has sustained physical loss or physical damage from a peril insured, or; B. which are necessary to return the work on the Insured Property to the same schedule actually being observed immediately prior to the sustaining of physical loss or physical damage from a peril insured. This Policy does not cover charges incurred to expedite work on parts of the Insured Property which have not sustained physical loss or physical damage.

2.

DEMOLITION AND INCREASED COST OF CONSTRUCTION A. Subject to the stated sublimit, in the event of direct physical loss and/or direct physical damage by perils insured under this Policy, the Company shall also pay: (i)

The increased cost to repair, replace or re-erect the Insured Property caused by the enforcement of any building, zoning or land use ordinance or law in force at the time of loss. If the Insured Property is replaced, it must be intended for similar occupancy of the current Insured Property, unless otherwise required by zoning or land use ordinance or law.

(ii)

The cost to demolish and clear the construction site of undamaged parts of the Insured Property caused by the enforcement of any building, zoning or land use law in force at the time of the loss.

B. In no event, however, shall the Company be liable for costs associated with the enforcement of any ordinance or law which requires any Insured or others to test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, or neutralize, or in any way respond to or assess the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkali, toxic chemicals, liquids or gasses, waste materials or other irritants, any Contaminants and/or Pollutants. C. The Company shall not pay for the increased cost of construction until the Insured Property is actually repaired, replaced, or re-erected at the same construction site or elsewhere and as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage, not to exceed thirty (30) months.

MBR Coverage Summary

6

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary D. In no event, however, shall the Company pay more: (i)

If the Insured Property is repaired, replaced or re-erected at the same construction site than the amount the insured actually spends to: a) Demolish and clear the construction site; and b) Repair, replace or re-erect the Insured Property but not for more than property of like height, floor area and style at the same construction site.

(ii)

If the Insured Property is not repaired, replaced, or re-erected at the same construction site than: a) The amount the Insured actually spends to demolish and clear the construction site; and b) The cost to replace, at the same construction site, the damaged or destroyed Insured Property with other property; 1) of like kind and quality; 2) of like height, floor area and style; and 3) used for the same purpose.

(iii) 3.

Than the stated sublimit of Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction.

FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE CHARGES Subject to the stated sublimit, when property insured is destroyed or damaged by a peril insured, this Policy shall also pay for the cost of fire department service charges for which the Insured is liable, provided they are assumed by contract or written agreement prior to a loss or they are required by a local ordinance.

4.

PLANS, BLUEPRINTS, AND SPECIFICATIONS Subject to the stated sublimit, in the event of direct physical loss or direct physical damage to plans, blueprints or specifications by perils insured under this policy, this insurance shall also pay the costs of mechanical reproduction from originals stored off-site for plans, blueprints or specifications.

5.

TREES, GRASS, SHRUBBERY, SEED AND PLANTS Subject to the stated sublimit, this policy is extended to insure direct physical loss or direct physical damage to trees, grass, shrubbery, seed and plants caused by or resulting from fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, explosion, smoke, collision by aircraft or vehicle, riot, riot attending a strike or civil commotion, vandalism or malicious mischief.

MBR Coverage Summary

7

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary 6.

DEBRIS REMOVAL Subject to the stated sublimit, in the event of direct physical loss or physical damage to Insured Property by perils insured under this policy, this insurance shall also pay the cost of removal of material and debris being a part of the Insured Property located at the construction site and the cost to demolish and clear the construction site of undamaged parts caused by the enforcement of any building, zoning or land use law in force at the time of the loss. This Policy also covers cost or expense to:

A. Extract Contaminants and/or Pollutants from the debris; or B. Extract Contaminants and/or Pollutants from land and/or water; or C. Remove, restore, or replace land and/or water made necessary due to the presence of Contaminants and/or Pollutants; or D. Remove or transport any property, material, or debris to a site for storage or decontamination required because the property, material, or debris is affected by Contaminants and/or Pollutants, whether or not such removal, transport, or decontamination is required by law or regulation. E. This sub-clause (Items A - D above), is subject to a sublimit for Pollution Cleanup Expenses. It is a condition precedent to recovery under this clause, that the Company shall have paid, or agreed to pay for direct physical loss or direct physical damage to the Insured Property and that the Insured shall give written notice to the Company of intent to claim for cost of removal of debris or the cost of cleanup no later than (12) twelve months after the date the original physical loss or physical damage occurred. 7.

ARCHITECT, ENGINEERING AND PROFESSIONAL FEES Subject to the stated sublimit, Architect, Engineering and Professional Fees shall mean the additional architectural and engineering expenses, excluding any costs for redesign or betterment, or owner’s consultant service expenses, or owner’s legal, appraisal, title and/or inspection fees incurred to facilitate repair or replacement of the Insured Property which has sustained physical loss or physical damage from an insured peril.

8.

GREEN/LEED Subject to the stated sublimit, in the event of a direct physical loss or direct physical damage not otherwise excluded in the policy to Insured Property by perils insured under the policy the Insurer shall also pay the reasonable additional cost, if any, incurred by the Insured to repair or replace such damaged or destroyed Insured Property in a manner and with products or materials of otherwise equivalent quality and function that meet the requirements of the LEED Rating System.

MBR Coverage Summary

8

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary Coverage under this extension applies only if the Insured Project has been registered with the US Green Building Council during the Period of Insurance specified on the Certificate of Builder’s Risk Insurance and prior to any loss, and only to the initial and intended building certification level that has been registered with the US Green Building Council, in accordance with the criteria outlined in order to comply with the requirements of the LEED Rating System existing at the time of the loss or damage to the Insured Project, which upon completion will undergo the process of being certified by the US Green Building Council. The following exclusions and limitations apply to this coverage extension: No coverage is provided under this extension: A. If no such products or materials exist at the time of the loss or damage; or B. If the Insured does not repair or replace the damaged or destroyed Insured Property. In no event will the policy pay more than the lesser of the: A. The cost to repair; or B. The cost to replace; the damaged Insured Property in a manner and with products or materials of otherwise equivalent quality and function that meet the requirements of the LEED Rating System existing at the time of the loss or damage. No coverage is provided under this extension of coverage for any of the following items: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 9.

Re-registering the Insured project with the US Green Building Council. Failure to meet the registered LEED Building Rating certification level. Land and land values. Any additional cost incurred to comply with any law or ordinance. Personal property of others in the Insured’s care, custody or control. Raw materials, stock-in-process and finished goods. Motor vehicles. Property located outside the Territorial Limits of the policy.

CLAIMS PREPARATIONS EXPENSE Subject to the stated sublimit, this policy is extended to include reasonable expenses incurred by the Insured, or by the Insured’s representatives for preparing the details of a claim resulting from a loss which would be payable under this policy. However, the Company shall not liable for expenses incurred by the Insured in utilizing or retaining the services of attorneys, insurance agents or brokers; or any subsidiary, related or associated entities either partially or wholly owned by an attorney or public adjuster.

MBR Coverage Summary

9

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary 10. MOLD/FUNGI Subject to the stated sublimit, in the event of direct physical loss or direct physical damage to Insured Property by perils insured under the policy, the insurance shall also pay, subject to the Limit of Liability and the terms, conditions, and limitations of this policy, the cost to clean up or remove Mold/Fungi from Insured Property located at the construction site. Not withstanding any terms or conditions, this policy does not insure any cost or expense incurred to test for, monitor, or assess the existence, concentration or effects of Mold/Fungi. SELECTED GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.

REQUIREMENTS IN CASE OF LOSS In the event of loss or damage to Insured Property the Insured shall: A.

Give immediate notice to the insurance company;

B.

Protect the Insured Property from further loss or damage;

C.

Within ninety (90) days from the date of discovery of the loss or damage, the Named Insured shall render a statement to the Insurer signed and sworn to by the Named Insured stating the knowledge and belief of the Insured as to the time and cause of the loss or damage and the interest of the Insured and all others in the Insured Property;

D.

Exhibit to any person designated by the Insurer all that remains of the Insured Property.

E.

Coordinate and cooperate with investigation and/or inspection of property and provide documentation as requested by the insurance adjuster. Do NOT destroy or salvage damaged property unless authorized to do so by the insurance adjuster.

F.

Submit to examinations under oath by any person named by the Insurer and produce for examination all writings, books of account, bills, invoices and other vouchers, or certified copies thereof if originals be lost, at such reasonable time and place as may be designated by the Insurer or its representative, and permit extracts and copies thereof to be made. No such examination under oath or examination of books or documents shall be deemed to be a waiver of any defense which the Insurer might otherwise have with respect to any loss or claim; but all such examinations and acts shall be deemed to have been made or done without prejudice to the Company’s liability.

G.

Subject to the Limit of Liability and the terms, conditions, and limitations of the policy, all adjusted losses shall be paid or made good to the Named Insured within sixty (60) days after presentation and acceptance of the satisfactory proof of interest and loss to the Insurer. No amount shall be paid on an adjusted loss or made good if the Insured has collected the same from others.

MBR Coverage Summary

10

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary 2.

VALUATION Subject to the Limit of Liability, sublimits or Aggregate Limit of Liability, the Insurer shall not be liable beyond the cost to repair, replace, or re-erect the Insured Property at the time and place of loss, with materials of like kind and quality, less the cost of betterment, salvage, or other recovery including contractors reasonable profit and overhead in the proportion as that included in the original contract documents, or 15% profit and overhead, whichever is lesser. If the Insured Property is not replaced, then the loss shall be settled on the Actual Cash Value basis with proper deduction for depreciation, salvage or other recovery and exclusive of profit and overhead.

3.

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY In the case of direct physical loss or direct physical damage to Insured Property by perils insured under the policy, it shall be lawful and necessary for the Insured, his or their factors, servants, or assigns, to sue, labor, and travel for in and about the defense, safeguard, and recovery of the Insured Property, or any part thereof, without prejudice to this insurance, nor shall the acts of the Insured or Insurer, in recovering, saving, and preserving the Insured Property in case of loss be considered a waiver or an acceptance of abandonment. The expenses so incurred shall be borne by the Insured and the Insurer proportionately to the extent of their respective interests.

4.

OTHER INSURANCE This Policy shall not provide coverage to the extent of any other insurance, whether prior or subsequent hereto in date, and by whomsoever effected, directly or indirectly covering the same property against the same peril; and the Company shall be liable for direct physical loss or direct physical damage only for the excess value beyond the amount due from such other insurance, subject to the applicable Deductible.

5.

INSUREDS’ REPRESENTATIVE The first Named Insured shall be the sole and irrevocable agent of each and every Insured for the purpose of: A. Payment of premium; B. Giving or receiving notice of cancellation; C. Requesting amendments to this policy and accepting amendments to the policy made by the Insurer.

6.

LOSS PAYABLE Loss, if any, shall be payable to the first Named Insured and/or its assigned designee.

7.

PARTIAL OCCUPANCY OR USE Notwithstanding anything to the contrary elsewhere in the policy, the Owner and/or tenants may occupy or use any completed or partially completed portion of the Insured Property, provided that the Insured warrants that all fire protection shall be in service and fully operational during such occupancy or use.

MBR Coverage Summary

11

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary SELECTED DEFINITIONS The following terms have been defined in the Master Policy and will be applied in the interpretation of certain wording used herein or within the Master Policy. 1.

FLOOD: Flood shall mean the rising, overflowing or breaking of boundaries of rivers, lakes, streams, ponds or similar natural or man-made bodies of water, or from waves, tidal waves, tidal waters, wave wash, or spray from any of the foregoing, surface waters, rain accumulation run off, all whether driven by wind or not.

2.

CONTAMINANTS OR POLLUTANTS: Contaminants and/or Pollutants shall mean any material which after its release or discharge can cause or threaten damage to human health and/or human welfare, or causes or threatens damage, deterioration, loss of value, marketability and/or loss of use to Insured Property; including, but not limited to, bacteria, virus, or hazardous substances as listed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and/or Toxic Substances Control Act, or as designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

3.

LAND MOVEMENT: Land Movement shall mean all land movement however caused, whether by natural event or man-made including but not limited to, earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami, subsidence, landslide, mudflow, or rockfall.

4.

OCCURRENCE: Occurrence shall mean any one loss, disaster, or casualty, or series of losses, disasters, or casualties arising out of one event. With respect to the perils of Water Damage, Flood, Land Movement, or riots, one event shall be construed to be all losses arising during a continuous period of seventy-two (72) hours. The Insured may choose the time from which any such seventy-two (72) hour period shall be deemed to have commenced, provided it shall not be earlier than the time of the first loss sustained by the Insured during the Occurrence.

5.

WATER DAMAGE: All water damage excluding flood, however caused, whether by natural event or manmade, including but not limited to interior water damage, damage due to water from pipe breakage or sprinkler leakage, damage from rainfall and/or resulting runoff; all whether wind driven or not.

MBR Coverage Summary

12

01.01.15 rev.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Master Builder’s Risk Program Coverage Summary PROJECTS EXCLUDED AND/OR MUST BE UNDERWRITTEN SEPARATELY. THESE

PROJECTS WILL BE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT RATES, DEDUCTIBLES, AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS. (A) Construction Cost exceeds: • • • •

$150 Million regardless of Construction Type (Standalone policy may apply on projects over $100 Million) $25 Million for Wood Frame (Standalone projects may apply on projects over $5 Million) $25 Million for Joisted Masonry $50 Million for Structural Renovations

(B) Project involves: • • • • • • • • • • •

Construction occurring outside of the State of California Co-Generation Facility Stadium or arena Bridge Tunnel Excavations greater than 1,000 feet in length or 40 feet in depth Transmission and/or distribution lines extending greater than 1,000 feet in length from the perimeter project site including cable, telecom, wires, poles, towers, and electrical Directional Drilling Gas Turbine Power Plants Standalone Projects for Water or Sewer Pipelines, Cut and Cover, Open Trench, Utility Relocations, Central Utility Plants, Waste Water, or Water Treatment Facilities. Standalone projects means when the scope of work is not included in the estimated Construction Cost of a building project

(C) Project requires coverage for: • • • •

Land Movement (e.g. Earthquake) Flood Terrorism Delay in Completion

MBR Coverage Summary

13

01.01.15 rev.

Geotechnical Investigation Report Berkeley Way Project University of California, Berkeley UCB Project 12629B

SOURCE: Google Earth, Imagery date: 08/28/2012 

Concept‐Level Draft Report – Not for Final Design SUBMITTED TO: Mr. Brian Main Senior Project Manager University of California, Berkeley Capital Projects [email protected]

February 27, 2014

A3GEO, Inc.   1331 Seventh Street, Unit E, Berkeley CA 94710 

February 27, 2014 Mr. Brian Main Senior Project Manager University of California, Berkeley Capital Projects [email protected]

Geotechnical Investigation Report Berkeley Way Project University of California, Berkeley UCB Project 12629B

Concept-Level Draft Report – Not for Final Design Dear Mr. Main, This report presents the results of A3GEO’s geotechnical investigation for UCB’s proposed Berkeley Way project to be located on the east side of Shattuck Avenue between Berkeley Way and Hearst Avenue in downtown Berkeley. We obtained information regarding the project conceptual design from the University’s Architect-Engineer team, which includes WRNS Studio (Architecture) and EStructure (Structural Engineering). This concept-level draft report includes data and interpretations pertaining to geotechnical and geologic conditions at the site and presents conclusions and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project, as it is currently envisioned. The interpretations, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were developed in accordance with generally-accepted geotechnical principles and practices at the time that the report was prepared. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based in part on concept-level information obtained from UCB’s Architect-Engineer team. UCB Purchase Order BB00302790 (dated 10 January 2014) requires that we leave this report in draft format to be finalized under a separate authorization after more details involving the project are known. Accordingly, this report in its current form is considered preliminary and should not be used for final design. We recommend that we be retained to provide geotechnical consultation as future designs are developed so that the finalized version of this report can be used in preparing the construction documents for a future Berkeley Way Project. Should you have questions or comments concerning our findings, the geotechnical concepts discussed or our recommendations, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely,

DRAFT

DRAFT

Wayne Magnusen, P.E., G.E. Principal Engineer Cell: (510) 325-5724

Dona Mann, P.E., G.E., Principal Engineer Cell: (415) 425-0247

 

1.00

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation by A3GEO for the University of California, Berkeley’s (UCB’s) Berkeley Way Project. The project site is located on the east side of Shattuck Avenue between Berkeley Way and Hearst Avenue in downtown Berkeley, as shown on Plate 1. We obtained information regarding the project conceptual design from the University’s Architect-Engineer team responsible for the concurrent Berkeley Way Tolman Hall Replacement Study (UCB Project 12629B), which includes WRNS Studio (Architecture) and EStructure (Structural Engineering). We provided our investigation phase services in accordance with UCB Purchase Order BB00302790 dated 10 January 2014. 1.01

Project Overview

The proposed project site measures about 200 feet by 250 feet in overall plan dimensions and is presently an asphalt-concrete paved parking lot. As shown on Plate 2, the project site is directly adjacent to UCB’s new Energy Biosciences Building (EBB), which was completed in 2012. At that time, the eastern side of the Berkeley Way site was newly paved and the western side was occupied by construction parking and several relocatable buildings. Prior to 2010 (Plate 3), the eastern side of the site was occupied by the State of California Department of Health Services (DHS) building, which was demolished to construct the EBB. The DHS building was nine stories high and included a single-level basement that extended onto the Berkeley Way site. As currently envisioned, the Berkeley Way Project will involve the construction of a new facility housing academic departments and classrooms. Preliminary massing studies prepared concurrent with this study generally show buildings between four and eight stories high occupying most of the available site. The project site slopes gently down from northeast to southwest with total difference in elevation across the site of a little more than 15 feet. Presently, it is envisioned that the lowest floor of the Berkeley Way Project would be at-grade at the southwest corner site adjacent to Berkeley Way. In this case, the lowest floor level would be about one story below grade at northeast corner of the site adjacent to Hearst Avenue. 1.02

Purpose and Approach

The primary purpose of our work was to provide geotechnical input to UCB and the University’s ArchitectEngineer team in support of their concurrent conceptual design study. Our approach included preparing this draft geotechnical investigation report using data developed expressly for this purpose in association with the adjacent EBB project. In accordance with our proposal and past UCB precedents, it was intended that this report will be left in a DRAFT format and finalized at a later date after more details involving the project are known (not part of our current scope of services). The licensed Geotechnical Engineers that co-authored this report (Wayne Magnusen and Dona Mann of 1 A3GEO) previously prepared the design-level geotechnical investigation report (AKA , 2010a) for the adjacent EBB project, which includes subsurface data specific to the Berkeley Way Project site. As discussed in our January 3, 2014 proposal, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on UCB and design team input coupled with existing onsite data and experience gained from the adjacent EBB Project. 1.03

Scope of Investigation

The scope of the geotechnical investigation described herein consisted of:     1

Reviewing and interpreting geologic, seismic and historical information. Reviewing and interpreting existing onsite data from the EBB Project. Characterizing geotechnical, geologic and seismic conditions at the Berkeley Way site. Consulting with UCB representatives and members of the University’s Architect-Engineer team.

Alan Kropp and Associates, Inc.

DRAFT

Page 1 of 25

 

 

Conducting engineering analyses and developing geotechnical and seismic design criteria. Preparing this DRAFT geotechnical report presenting data, conclusions and recommendations.

No subsurface explorations, laboratory tests or other onsite investigations were performed as part of this study. Our scope was limited to geotechnical services and did not include investigation of the site for the presence of hazardous, toxic or corrosive materials or environmental consultation relating to soil reuse or offsite disposal. 1.04

This Report

This report is intended to be a “stand alone” document and includes data and other pertinent information contained in our previous report for the EBB (AKA, 2010a). Our use of the data described herein and presented in appendices A through C was with the full knowledge and consent of AKA and UCB. The methods used to develop these data are described within the text of this report for completeness purposes. Borings drilled outside the Berkeley Way site boundary (i.e., B-4 through B-8) were excluded from this report and the attached appendices. The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections: Section 2 describes our methods of investigation; Section 3 describes the geologic setting and the results of our review of existing information; Section 4 describes the site conditions and the results of onsite investigations; Section 5 presents our geotechnical evaluation and conclusions; Section 6 presents our geotechnical recommendations for the project; Section 7 summarizes the limitations of our study; and Section 8 presents a list of selected references. Following the written portion of this report are illustrative Plates, technical Figures and three Appendices. Appendix A presents the logs of onsite test borings. Appendix B presents geotechnical laboratory test results and the results of corrosion testing. Appendix C presents a Seismic Surface Wave Survey Report by Norcal Geophysical Consultants, Inc. 2.00

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

2.01

Review of Geologic, Seismic and Historical Information

We reviewed geologic maps and literature pertaining to geologic and seismic conditions as well as historic maps and photographs relating to the development of downtown Berkeley. A list of selected items that we reviewed as part of this study is presented in Section 8.00, “References.” 2.02

Geotechnical Borings

In August 2009, seven geotechnical borings (Borings B-1 through B-3 and B-9 through B-12) were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The borings extended to depths between 33 and 40 feet below the ground surface; the logs of these seven borings are attached in Appendix A. Borings B-4 through B-8, also drilled in 2009, were located east of the Berkeley Way site in the vicinity of the EBB building; logs of these five borings can be found in the previous report by AKA (2010a). All of the borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 6½- and 8-inch-diameter, continuous hollow stem augers. Ms. Alma Luna, PE, of AKA logged the subsurface materials encountered and obtained samples at frequent intervals under the direct supervision of Dona Mann, GE, (A3GEO). Soil samples were obtained using a 2-inch outside diameter (O.D.) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler without liners and a 3-inch O.D. California Modified sampler with liners. The samplers were driven with a 140-pound automatic-trip hammer falling 30 inches. The hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of each 18-inch drive are presented on the boring logs. Where the sampler met early refusal, the number of hammer blows and the corresponding depth of penetration (in inches) are indicated. Following drilling, the depth to groundwater was measured in the drill holes (where present). A standpipe piezometers was installed in one onsite hole (Boring B-10), and the remaining holes were backfilled with grout.

DRAFT

Page 2 of 25

 

Ms. Mann (A3GEO) reviewed samples in the laboratory to check field classifications and select suitable specimens for laboratory testing. Soils were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2488, which is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS is described on the Key to Exploratory Boring Logs, Figure A1. Rock was classified in general accordance with the Physical Properties for Rock Descriptions described on Figure A2. We note that the attached logs and related information are intended to depict subsurface conditions only at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan (Figure 1) on the particular date designated on the logs; the passage of time may result in changes in the subsurface conditions. The boring locations indicated on the attached materials were determined by measuring from existing improvements and should be considered approximate. A summary of our findings from our subsurface exploration can be found in Section 4.00, “Site Conditions.” 2.03

Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

The geotechnical investigation report for the EBB project (AKA, 2010a) includes the results of the following geotechnical laboratory tests.     

Water content per ASTM D-2216; Dry density per ASTM D-2937; Atterberg Limits per ASTM D-4318; Particle size analysis per ASTM D-422; and Unconsolidated-undrained triaxial test per ASTM D-2850.

The preceding tests were conducted in general accordance with the current edition of the referenced ASTM standards at the time the tests were performed. The results of the tests are presented on the boring logs presented in Appendix A at the appropriate sample depths and are summarized on the first page of Appendix B. The laboratory data sheets are included in Appendix B, where applicable. 2.04

Corrosivity Testing

The geotechnical investigation report for the EBB project (AKA, 2010a) includes the results of geochemical laboratory tests (ASTM test methods) on four samples, which were conducted for the purpose of evaluating soil corrosion potential. The geochemical laboratory tests, performed by CERCO Analytical, included measurements of resistivity (ASTM G-57), chloride and sulfate ion concentrations (ASTM D-432 and D-4327, respectively), pH (ASTM D-4972) and redox potential (ASTM D-1498). The corrosivity test results are included in Appendix B along with CERCO’s brief interpretative analysis, for reference purposes. Project-specific conclusions and recommendations regarding corrosion are outside the scope of this geotechnical study and should be developed in consultation with a qualified corrosion consultant. 2.05

Groundwater Depth Measurements

A standpipe piezometer was installed in Boring B-10 during the August 2009 field investigation for the EBB Project. Groundwater depths were measured in the piezometer on September 1, 2009; November 1, 2009; December 2, 2009; and January 21, 2010. The results of the groundwater measurements are presented in Section 4.02.7, “Groundwater.” 2.06

Geophysical Survey

On August 13, 2009, Norcal Geophysical Consultants, Inc. performed a multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) survey at the Berkeley Way site. MASW is a non-invasive, surficial geophysical method used to determine shear wave (S-wave) velocities of near-surface materials. In the MASW method, surface waves are recorded and the dispersion of surface waves is analyzed to evaluate near-surface shear wave velocities. The MASW survey was conducted along three alignments within the parking lot west of the former DHS building. The survey method requires that a continuous line of geophones be placed on the ground surface to record the arrival of seismic waves, which are induced into the ground by a hammer striking a

DRAFT

Page 3 of 25

 

steel plate. The locations of the three MASW survey lines are shown on Figure 1 as well as on Plate 1 of Norcal’s report (Appendix C). 2.07

EBB Construction Report

As part of our current study, we acquired and reviewed site-specific data contained in the geotechnical construction observation and testing report prepared for the EBB Project (AKA, 2010b). These data included the results of the following tests documenting the placement/compaction of backfill within the former DHS Building basement excavation:  

In-situ density and moisture per ASTM D-2922 and D-3017, respectively; and Maximum dry density and optimum moisture per ASTM D-1557.

We also discussed construction-phase geotechnical observations with one of the report’s principal authors, Don Irby, CE (now with the City of Berkeley). 3.00

GEOLOGIC, SEISMIC AND HISTORICAL SETTING

3.01

Regional Geology

The site is located along the base of the Berkeley Hills, which lie within the northern portion of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. This province is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys that generally parallel the major geologic structures, such as the San Andreas and Hayward faults. The oldest widespread rocks in the region are highly deformed sedimentary, metamorphic and volcanic rocks of the Franciscan complex of the Mesozoic Era (approximately 65 million to 225 million years ago). These rocks lie in fault contact with sedimentary rocks of the Mesozoic Great Valley Sequence. The Mesozoic rocks are locally overlain by Cenozoic Era (younger than approximately 65 million years) sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Since deposition, both Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks have been extensively deformed by repeated episodes of folding and faulting. The San Francisco Bay Area experienced several episodes of uplift and faulting during the late Tertiary Period (about 2 million to 25 million years ago) that produced the region’s characteristic northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys, such as San Francisco Bay and Berkeley Hills (Plate 4). World-wide climatic fluctuations occurred during the Pleistocene epoch (about 1.8 million to 11,000 years ago), which resulted in several distinct glacial periods. A lowering of sea level accompanied each glacial advance as water became stored in vast ice sheets. Melting of the continental glaciers during warmer climatic intervals caused corresponding rises in sea level. High sea levels favored rapid and widespread deposition in the bay and surrounding floodplains. Low sea levels during glacial advances steepened the gradients of streams and rivers draining to the sea, thereby encouraging erosional downcutting. The most recent glacial period ended about 11,000 years ago. During the maximum extent of this most recent glacial period, sea levels lowered about 300 to 400 feet below its present elevation, and the valley currently occupied by San Francisco Bay drained to the Pacific Ocean more than 30 miles west of the Golden Gate. Near the beginning of the Holocene epoch (about 11,000 years ago), sea level had risen and re-entered the Golden Gate, which resulted in the accumulation of sediments within San Francisco Bay and along the surrounding floodplains. Sediments covering the bottom of San Francisco Bay blanket many of the adjacent floodplains and are less than 11,000 years old in age. Because of their geologically-recent deposition, these materials are generally less dense, weaker, and more compressible than the deeper, well-consolidated, Pleistocene-aged soils that predate the last sea level rise.

DRAFT

Page 4 of 25

 

3.02

Bay Area Active Faults

San Francisco Bay Area is located within a broad region of deformation at the boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. This region includes a series of major active northwesttrending faults, which include the San Andreas, Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, San Gregorio, Concord-Green Valley, West Napa, and Greenville faults, as shown on Plate 5. The major regional faults shown on Plate 5 are near-vertical in orientation, and generally exhibit rightlateral, strike-slip movement (which means that movement along these faults is predominantly horizontal, and when viewed from one side of the fault to the other, the opposite side of the fault is observed as being displaced to the right). Faults that are defined as active exhibit one or more of the following: (1) evidence of Holocene-age (within about the past 11,000 years) displacement, (2) measurable seismic fault creep, (3) close proximity to linear concentrations or trends of earthquake epicenters, and/or (4) tectonic-related geomorphology. Potentially active faults are defined as those that have evidence of Quaternary-age displacement (within the past 11,000 to 2 million years), but have not been definitively shown to lack Holocene movement. The closest known active fault to the project site is the Hayward fault, which is runs along the base of the Berkeley Hills about 0.6 miles northeast of the site. The Hayward fault is about 74 miles long, trending northwest from San Jose through several East Bay cities into San Pablo Bay. Further northward of San Pablo Bay is the Rodgers Creek fault, which is offset slightly eastward of the Hayward fault. Both Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults are considered to be interconnected by a series of en echelon fault strands, that are inferred to step eastward beneath San Pablo Bay. To the south, the Hayward fault also is considered to merge with the Calaveras fault, which lies to the south of San Jose. The Calaveras fault extends northward and merges with other unnamed faults within San Ramon Valley, which is located further eastward of the Hayward fault. The locations of these various faults are shown on Plate 5. Approximate distances and directions to major active Bay Area faults from the project site are shown in the following table (Jennings and Bryant, 2010). Approximate Distances and Directions to Active Faults Approximate Distance from Site (miles)

Approximate Direction from Site

Hayward

0.6

Northeast

Calaveras

12.1

East

Rodgers Creek

14.2

Northwest

Concord-Green Valley

14.5

Northeast

San Andreas Greenville

17.8

Southwest

18.6

Northeast

West Napa

19.1

North

San Gregorio

20.3

Southwest

Active Fault

3.03

Bay Area Seismicity

The greater San Francisco Bay Area region is characterized by a high level of seismic activity. Historically, this region has experienced strong ground shaking from large earthquakes, and will continue to do so in the future. Since 1800, five earthquakes with Moment Magnitudes (M) of 6.5 or greater have occurred in the Bay Area (Bakun, 1999). These include the 1) 1836 M6.5 event east of Monterey Bay; 2) 1838 M6.8 event on the Peninsula section of the San Andreas fault; 3) 1868 M6.8-7.0 Hayward event on the Southern Hayward fault; 4) 1906 M7.9 San Francisco event on the San Andreas fault; and 5) 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta event in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

DRAFT

Page 5 of 25

 

In 2003, The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2003), in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), published an updated report evaluating the probabilities of significant earthquakes occurring in the Bay Area over the next three decades, (2002-2031), which has since been updated on a state-wide scale in 2008 for the time span of 2007 through 2036. The WGCEP 2008 report indicates that there is a 0.63 (63 percent) probability that at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay region before 2037. This probability is an aggregate value that considers seven principal Bay Area fault systems and unknown faults (background values – WGCEP, 2003). The findings of the WGCEP 2008 report are summarized in the following table: WGCEP (2008) Probabilities Fault System Hayward/Rodgers Creek San Andreas Calaveras San Gregorio Concord-Green Valley Greenville Mount Diablo Thrust Background *(2002-2031)

Probability of At Least One Magnitude 6.7 or Larger Earthquake in 2007-2036 0.31 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.14*

The published background values are not explicitly stated in the WGCEP (2008) and thus the WGCEP (2003) values were used. The background values indicate that between 2002 and 2031 there is a 14 percent chance that an earthquake with a magnitude of greater than 6.7 may occur in the Bay Area on a fault system not characterized in the study. It should be noted differences between the 2008 and 2003 WGCEP generally fall within the magnitude of error, and major differences in background values are not expected. 3.04

Local Geology

The site is situated near the eastern edge of a broad, gently-sloping plain deposited by streams flowing westward from the Berkeley Hills. Franciscan complex bedrock, which is present near the ground surface within the UCB Main Campus to the east, underlies the alluvial deposits at the site. The geologic maps presented on Plates 6 and 7 depict geologic materials (units) interpreted to be present at or near the ground surface. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regional geologic map on Plate 6 (Graymer, 2000) maps the near surface soils at the site as alluvial and fluvial deposits of Holocene age (map symbol Qhaf). A related USGS map viewable through Google Earth (Graymer et al., 2006) shows the geologic units in the vicinity of the site in closer detail. Knudsen et al. (2000) describes the Qhaf unit as follows: (Qhaf): Sediments deposited by streams emanating from mountain canyons onto alluvial valley floors or alluvial plains as debris flows, hyperconcentrated mudflows, or braided stream flows. Alluvial fan sediment includes sand, gravel, silt, and clay, and is moderately to poorly sorted and moderately to poorly bedded. Sediment clast size and general particle size typically decrease downslope from the fan apex. Many Holocene alluvial fans exhibit levee/interlevee topography, particularly the fans associated with the fans flowing west from the eastern San Francisco Bay hills. Alluvial fan deposits are identified primarily on the basis of fan morphology and topographic expression. Holocene alluvial fans are relatively undissected, especially, when compared to older alluvial fans. In places, Holocene deposits may be only a thin veneer over Pleistocene deposits. Soils are typically entisols, inceptisols, mollisols and vertisols. Greater than 5 percent of the ninecounty San Francisco Bay Area is covered by Holocene alluvial fan deposits. It is the most extensive Quaternary map unit in the region.

DRAFT

Page 6 of 25

 

Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits of Pleistocene age (map symbol Qpaf) are mapped to the northeast of the site (Plates 6 and 7). Knudsen et al. (2000) describes these older alluvial deposits as follows: (Qpaf): Latest Pleistocene alluvial fan sediment was deposited by streams emanating from mountain canyons onto alluvial valley floors or alluvial plains as debris flows, hyperconcentrated mudflows, or braided stream flows. Alluvial fan sediment typically includes sand, gravel, silt, and clay, and is moderately to poorly sorted, and moderately to poorly bedded. Sediment clast size and general particle size typically decreases downslope from the fan apex. Latest Pleistocene alluvial fan sediment is approximately 10 percent denser than Holocene alluvial fan sediment and has penetration resistance values about 50 percent greater than values for Holocene alluvial fan sediment. Pleistocene alluvial fans may be veneered or incised by thin unmapped Holocene alluvial fan deposits. Along the west-facing hills of Oakland and Berkeley, where latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits are mapped, the age of these deposits is not well constrained and the deposits may actually be a combination of early to late Pleistocene alluvial fan and thin pediment deposits, and latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits. Deposits are typically very stiff to hard or medium-dense to very dense. Franciscan complex mélange (map symbol KJfm) is mapped on the UCB Main Campus to the east of the site (Plates 6 and 7). Graymer (2000) describes this basement rock unit as follows: (KJfm): Franciscan complex mélange (Cretaceous and/or Late Jurassic)- Sheared black argillite, graywacke, and minor green tuff, containing blocks and lenses of graywacke and metagraywacke (fs ), chert (fc), shale, metachert, serpentinite (sp), greenstone (fg), amphibolite, tuff, eclogite, quartz schist, greenschist, basalt, marble, conglomerate, and glaucophane schist (fm). Blocks range in size from pebbles to several hundred meters in length. Only some of the largest blocks are shown on the map. Radbruch (1957) maps the site as Temescal Formation, a Quaternary (younger than about 1.8 million years) deposit described as “gravel, clayey; clay, sandy, silty; and sand-clay-silt mixtures.” 3.05

Geologic Hazard Mapping

The City of Berkeley’s environmental constraints map (Plate 8) includes geologic hazard zones mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS). As shown on Plate 8, the site is not within nor proximate to any of the mapped CGS hazard zones (earthquake fault rupture, earthquake-induced landsliding or 2 earthquake-induced liquefaction ). In downtown Berkeley, the official CGS liquefaction zone is confined to a narrow area directly adjacent to Strawberry Creek. This zone is mapped about 1,000 feet south of the site. The liquefaction susceptibility map prepared by Knudsen, et al. (2000) shows all of downtown Berkeley as an area of “low” liquefaction susceptibility. The Knudsen, et al. (2000) map also shows recorded instances of past ground effect occurrences resulting from earthquake shaking. The nearest such instance is mapped in the vicinity of the Berkeley Marina, about 2.5 miles west-southwest of the site. A professional paper on earthquake damage from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (Youd and Hoose, 1978) suggests that there are no documented cases of liquefaction-induced ground failures having occurred in Berkeley as a result of the 1906 event. A 1990 report on the geotechnical aspects of the Loma Prieta Earthquake (Seed, et al., 1990) suggests that documented occurrences of soil liquefaction in Berkeley associated with Loma Prieta were confined to areas that are underlain by fill (the Berkeley Marina and areas surrounding Highway 80 west of Aquatic Park). In general, the references that we reviewed do not include any reported incidents of liquefaction in the general project vicinity.

2 Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby susceptible soils, when submerged, can lose strength, compress (settle) and sometimes gain mobility in response to earthquake ground shaking.

DRAFT

Page 7 of 25

 

3.06

Historical Development

Prior to development, the Berkeley plain was dissected by a series of east-west trending creeks that flowed from the Berkeley Hills west towards San Francisco Bay. During the development of downtown Berkeley, which occurred during the mid to late 1800s, culverts were installed within the creek beds, the creeks were filled in, and the mostly rectangular grid of streets was laid out and graded. There is no record of how much fill was placed in specific areas in this initial stage of development; however, generally deeper fills exist in former low-lying areas adjacent to creeks. The 1878 map presented on Plate 9 shows Strawberry Creek, the most significant creek in Downtown Berkeley, once flowed through the corner of what is now Shattuck Avenue and Allston street about four blocks south of the Berkeley Way Site. The creek map presented on Plate 10 (Sowers, 1993) shows a former tributary creek about one block south of the Berkeley Way site; the topographic contours on this map generally suggest that the uphill extension of this drainage likely passed through the intersection of Hearst Avenue and Oxford Street, east of the Berkeley Way site. Most of the parcels in downtown Berkeley have experienced multiple phases of building and demolition in the past 100 or more years. The northeast portion of downtown Berkeley (including the block in which the subject site is located) was consumed by fire in 1923. The 1930’s-vintage aerial photographs presented on Plates 11 and 12 show the site mostly occupied by low-rise buildings; although the parcel at the southwest corner (closest to Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way) appears vacant. Plans for the State of California DHS building that formerly existed at the site (Plates 3 and 13) are dated 1953; it is presumed that all of the older buildings that formerly existed at the site were demolished by that time. In the late 1960s, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) subway tunnel for the Richmond Line was built. The subway tunnel presently exists southeast of the site on the opposite side of the Shattuck Avenue – Berkeley Way intersection. 3.07

EBB Project

The EBB project involved the demolition of the State of California DHS building (Plate 13) and the backfilling of the former DHS building basement that extended onto the Berkeley Way site. Demolition activities included removing basement walls, slabs and the upper portions of deep foundations; the deeper portions of the pier shafts and bells were left in place. Following the removal of below-grade concrete elements, the subgrade was reportedly inspected and confirmed to be relatively firm and nonyielding prior to backfill placement (AKA, 2010b). Backfill consisted of both onsite soil and crushed concrete aggregate (Plate 14), which was observed and tested to check conformance with EBB Project Contract Documents requiring at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D-1557. The EBB Project construction report (AKA, 2010b) documents the locations and results of the field density tests performed as well as the ASTM D-1557 laboratory test results and concludes that the backfill that was observed and tested was in conformance with the project plans and specifications. The report also notes that some near-surface soils outside of the basement backfill zone were found to be “moderately soft and slightly yielding” and that a stabilization fabric (Mirafi 500X) was installed below the aggregate base layers within these areas. 4.00

SITE CONDITIONS

4.01

Surface Conditions

A topographic survey was performed by BKF in August 2009 and was used as the base map for the Site Plan, presented on Figure 1. The project site slopes gently from the northeast to southwest and is presently a surface parking lot paved in asphalt concrete. As shown on Figure 1, the elevation at the northeast corner of the site is about +213 feet, and the elevation at the southwest corner of the site is about +198 feet. The south, west and north sides of the site are directly adjacent to City of Berkeley streets; the east side of the site is adjacent to the EBB development. Surface contours within the site vary slightly from those shown on the Site Plan (Figure 1) as the site was graded and paved as part of the adjacent EBB Project, which was completed in 2012.

DRAFT

Page 8 of 25

 

4.02

Subsurface Conditions

4.02.1 Generalized Subsurface Conditions We developed three interpretive cross sections (A-A’, B-B’ and C-C’) depicting subsurface conditions at the site, which are presented on Figures 2, 3 and 4. The cross section locations are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 1) along with the locations of: 1) previous borings and geophysical (MASW) survey lines; and 2) the outline of the former DHS building from the 2009 Civil survey drawing by BKF. In general, the cross sections depict fill overlying natural alluvial deposits overlying Franciscan complex siltstone and sandstone bedrock. Within the alluvium, the cross sections that we prepared delineate between deposits interpreted to be predominantly fine-grained (silts and clays) versus those that contain significant fractions of coarse-grained material (sands and gravels). The cross sections include graphical depictions of the test borings together with groundwater depth/elevation data obtained at the time that the borings were drilled. The depths and elevations of the fill, alluvial deposits, and bedrock logged in each of the borings are summarized in the following table: Interpreted Depth/Elevation Data from Borings (Appendix A) Top of Boring Top of Natural Top of Bedrock Top of Bedrock Fill Depth Elevation* Alluvium Elevation Depth Elevation (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) 205.5 3.5 202.0 38 167.5 207 2.5 204.5 33.5 173.5 210 5 205.0 34 176 204.5 1.5 203.0 35 169.5 202.5 4 198.5 33 169.5 203.5 1.5 202.0 40 163.5 199 0 199.0 38 161 Approximate ground surface elevations from Topographic Survey by BKF dated 8/14/09.

Boring B-1 B-2 B-3 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 *

As currently envisioned, the lowest floor level of the Berkeley Way project will be near the elevation of the adjacent sidewalk at the southwest corner of the site (near Elevation +198 feet). The cross sections on Figures 2 through 4 show a horizontal “conceptual depth of excavation” line at Elevation +195 feet. Cross Sections B-B’ and C-C’ (Figures 3 and 4) show the approximate limits of the former DHS basement that was backfilled during the EBB Project. 4.02.2 Old Near-Surface Fill As shown in the preceding table, the near-surface fill materials encountered in previous onsite borings were generally less than about 4 feet thick; none of these materials extend below conceptual depth of excavation (+195 feet) shown on Figures 2 through 4. The near-surface fill materials encountered in previous test borings generally consisted of soft to very stiff lean to fat clay (CL and CH) with varying amounts of sand and gravel, loose to medium-dense clayey gravel (GC), and loose, clean sand and gravel (SP and GP). Some of the fill materials contained debris including concrete, wood, and metal; generally, the surficial fills were judged to be variable in consistency and poorly compacted in some areas. Atterberg Limits determinations performed on samples of the nearsurface fill resulted in Plasticity Indices (PI) between 16 and 32 which are generally indicative of soils with moderate to high expansion potential (expansive soils generally shrink and swell with changes in moisture content).

DRAFT

Page 9 of 25

 

4.02.3 Underground Storage Tank Backfill Previous environmental documents reviewed as part of the EBB Project indicate that an underground storage tank (UST) once existed on the south side of the site at the approximate location indicated on Figure 1. The depth, lateral extent and nature of the backfill placed within the former UST excavation prior to the EBB Project is presently unknown and the UST backfill is not shown on Cross Section C-C’ (Figure 4). 4.02.4 Basement Backfill The backfill within the former DHS building basement excavations was placed under engineering controls, which included field density tests to confirm that specified compaction levels (minimum 90 percent relative compaction) were achieved. The construction services report documenting the backfilling of the basement excavation (AKA, 2010b) indicates that most of the basement backfill at the Berkeley Way site consisted of natural material described as “Silty, Sandy, Clay” with varying amounts of gravel. As can be seen on Plate 14, coarse-grained material was used to construct mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls directly adjacent to the new EBB basement. AKA (2010b) describes the MSE backfill as “Gravel, w/Sand, Trace Clay (Recycled AB).” 4.02.5 Natural Alluvial Deposits The alluvial deposits encountered in the borings consisted of stiff to very stiff clays and silts (CL, CH, ML) and medium-dense to dense clayey and silty sands and gravels (SC, SM, GC, GM). Generally, the sands and gravels have a moderate to high amount of fines (clay and silt). The natural alluvial deposits vary in consistency and include materials judged to have a moderate to high expansion potential. Generally, below about 16 feet from the ground surface, the alluvial deposits become consistently stiff to very stiff and medium dense to dense. The logs of onsite borings include the following information on the natural soils encountered at or directly below the conceptual excavation depth shown on Figures 2 through 4 (Elevation +195 feet). Alluvial Soils at/below Elevation +195 Feet

Boring B-1 B-2 B-3 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12

Sample Interval (Elevation) 195.5 to 194.0 feet 192.0 to 190.5 feet 193.0 to 191.5 192.5 to 191.0 feet 193.5 to 192.0 feet 191.5 to 190.0 feet 194.0 to 192.5 feet

DRAFT

Soil Description at/near Sample Bottom SAND/GRAVEL, Clayey Medium Dense GRAVEL, Clayey (GC) Dense SAND, Silty, Clayey (SC/SM) Medium Dense CLAY, Lean (CL) Stiff to Very Stiff GRAVEL, Clayey (GC) Medium Dense GRAVEL, Clayey (GC) Medium Dense CLAY, Lean (CL) Stiff

Page 10 of 25

Modified California Sampler Blow Count

Adjusted Blow Count (0.63 factor)

35

22

44

28

30

19

34

21

35

22

29

18

17

11

 

4.02.6 Franciscan Complex Bedrock The bedrock encountered in onsite borings (Appendix A) generally consisted of friable to weak, deeply to moderately weathered, intensely fractured to crushed siltstone and clayey sandstone with low to moderate hardness. In general, the bedrock becomes less weathered and more competent with depth. In general, the interpreted bedrock surface at the site slopes down towards the west from an elevation of approximately 176 feet at the location of Boring B-3 to an elevation of approximately 161 feet at the location of Boring B-12. 4.02.7 Groundwater In general, groundwater levels at the site can be expected to fluctuate on an annual basis, as well as over longer intervals, depending upon climate and long-term weather patterns. Groundwater measurements measured during the EBB investigation are presented in the following table. Groundwater Monitoring Data Groundwater Groundwater Depth Elevation (feet) (feet) 188.0 14.5 9/1/09 Inaccessible 11/1/09 Boring B-10 202.5 188.0 14.5 12/2/09 190.6 11.9 1/21/10 * Approximate ground surface elevations from Topographic Survey by BKF dated 8/14/09. Piezometer Location

Ground Surface Elevation* (feet)

Date of Measurement

Previous environmental consultant reports provided by UCB also included information pertaining to groundwater levels. According to the groundwater sampling/monitoring report for 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California, prepared by GPI Environmental Management for the California Department of Health Services, dated September 17, 1996 and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board UST Close letter, dated January 3, 1997, groundwater was recorded as high as 5.8 feet below the ground surface (Elevation +202.52 feet, MSL) during the rainy season. 4.02.8 Site Dynamic Properties The results from the onsite geophysical survey (Appendix C), performed by Norcal as part of the investigation for the EBB project, show interpreted pressure wave (P-wave) and shear wave (S-wave) velocity profiles for the three MASW survey lines shown on Figure 1. Norcal’s interpretation of the MASW results is summarized in the following table: Interpreted Shear Wave Velocities (by Norcal) Geologic/Velocity Layers

Depth Range (feet, bgs*)

S-wave Velocity (feet/second)

P-wave Velocity (feet/second)

Fill/Alluvium

34-38

800-1900

1700-3700

Upper Bedrock

34-56

2000-2500

3700-6100

Lower Bedrock

48-70

2600-3400

6950-8300

* bgs = below the ground surface

DRAFT

Page 11 of 25

 

5.00

EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.01 Geologic Hazard Assessment 5.01.1 General Based on the available information, we conclude that the site is relatively free of geologic hazards except for earthquake ground shaking, a hazard shared throughout the region. Our assessment of potential geologic hazards relative to the envisioned project follows. 5.01.2 Earthquake Ground Shaking The San Francisco Bay Area is subject to periodic earthquake ground shaking and strong ground shaking is likely to occur at the site within the life of the project as a result of future earthquakes. The site is about 0.6 mile from the Hayward fault, the fault with the highest probability of producing a large (M 6.7 or larger) earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. Using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Ground Motion Interpolator (2008) on the CGS website (http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html), we obtained a Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.67g for a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years (475-year return period) level of hazard. Structures at the site should be designed to resist strong ground shaking in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) and local design practice. The California Building Code (CBC) outlines standard procedures for seismic design intended to account for the effects of earthquake shaking. In recent versions of the CBC, the effect of soil conditions on surface ground motions is accounted for through the use of site classifications. In the 2013 CBC, sites are classified as A through F based on average properties for the upper 100 feet of underlying material (soil or rock). Recommended geotechnical parameters for CBC-based design are presented in Section 6.02.1, “Building Code Seismic Design Parameters.” The seismic design provisions of the CBC also allow the use of earthquake ground motions developed through a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA). Recent UCB projects have utilized PSHA-derived UCB campus design ground motions (response spectra and time histories) developed by URS Corporation (URS). The most recent ground motions developed by URS take advantage of “next generation” attenuation models (NGA models), which generally predict lower levels of ground shaking for the UCB campus than previous models. We anticipate that the UCB campus design ground motions may be used in the structural design of the Berkeley Way building(s), if: (1) the UCB campus design ground motions are found to be significantly lower than the CBC-derived ground motions over the period(s) of interest; or (2) if earthquake time histories are needed for dynamic analysis. 5.01.3 Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon under which ground shaking can cause certain types of susceptible soils under groundwater to lose strength, compress (settle) and/or gain mobility (flow). Soils generally considered most susceptible to liquefaction include loose, clean, coarse-grained soils (i.e., sands and gravels) that are below groundwater. Submerged, fine-grained soils (i.e., silts and clays) with very low plasticity can also experience generally similar cyclic degradation in response to earthquake shaking and are considered susceptible to liquefaction if certain criteria are met. Liquefaction and similar phenomena within fine-grained soils is a topic of ongoing research. However, there appears to be an emerging consensus that: 1) the Plasticity Index (PI) is one good indicator of liquefaction susceptibility; and 2) there exists a fines content threshold (FCthr) above which a soil will behave like the fines and not the coarser matrix soil. Typically, the FCthr is between about 20 and 35 percent depending on factors such as the soil’s full gradational characteristics, mineralogical composition, particle shapes, and depositional environment. Review of the official seismic hazard map for this area prepared by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2003) indicates that the site is not within a mapped zone for which an evaluation of soil liquefaction is required. The nearest CGS Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction approximately corresponds with the location of the former Strawberry Creek channel, which is located about ¼ mile south of the site. Review

DRAFT

Page 12 of 25

 

of the data presented on the logs of onsite borings (Appendix A) indicates that most of the soils encountered below groundwater are of sufficient density and/or plasticity to preclude liquefaction. However, insufficient data presently exists to evaluate the susceptibility of certain soils; in particular, the 4.5-foot-thick layer of sandy silt (ML) encountered between depths of 15 and 19.5 feet in Boring B-1. The principal consequence of liquefaction occurring within this layer/lens would be settlement, although the amount of total settlement is likely to be small considering: 1) the relative thinness of the layer (4.5 feet); 2) the predominance of fines (Classification ML); and 3) the notation that plasticity increases with depth within the layer. Although additional investigation would be needed to conclusively demonstrate the presence/absence of liquefaction potential at the location of Boring B-1, we judge that the overall risk that liquefaction would pose a significant hazard to a building at this location is low. 5.01.4 Surface Fault Rupture The references that we reviewed indicate the closest mapped active fault is the Hayward fault, which is approximately 0.60 miles northeast of the site. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone (CDMG, 1982) and no mapped fault traces pass through the site. Consequently, we judge that the likelihood of surface fault rupture occurring at the site is very low. 5.01.5 Landsliding The site and surrounding area are nearly level. No landslides are present that could cause movement of material on or into the site. The site is not within a mapped landslide or an area considered to have a potential landslide hazard; therefore, we judge that the potential for landsliding at the site is nil. 5.01.6 Inundation The site is located approximately two miles from San Francisco Bay near Elevation +200 feet; inundation by tsunami or seiche is therefore not a concern. To our knowledge, there are no dams or large reservoirs upslope of the site that could pose an inundation hazard to the Berkeley Way facility. There are no creeks or other significant drainages in the direct vicinity and we consider the overall risk of large-scale inundation of the site to be essentially nil. 5.02 Geotechnical Considerations 5.02.1 General Based on the available information, we conclude that the envisioned project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. A summary of geotechnical considerations for the project follows. 5.02.2 Basement Walls and Slabs As currently envisioned, the proposed building(s) would have a ground floor level at about the level of the Berkeley Way – Shattuck Avenue intersection. Because the site and adjacent street grades generally slope up towards the north and east, this approach requires excavation to construct the lowest floor level. The massing studies prepared concurrent with this study show various partial basement scenarios, some of which involve basement retaining walls adjacent to City of Berkeley sidewalks and streets. The “conceptual depth of excavation” line shown on the cross sections (Figures 2, 3 and 4) illustrates the approximate maximum depth and horizontal extent of excavation, as presently envisioned. Considerations associated with the location/elevation of planned basement walls and slabs include the following. Excavations that extend down to or below Elevation +195 feet will expose mostly competent soils capable of providing adequate support for spread footings or mat foundations. Footings/mats founded at higher elevations would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Where old fill or weak/compressible soils exist below planned footing/mat depths, remediation by removal/replacement or other types of ground improvement would likely be necessary.

DRAFT

Page 13 of 25

 

Since it is anticipated that the natural groundwater level at the site may at times rise to within about 5 feet of adjacent street grades, retaining walls and floors below this depth will need to be: 1) fully waterproofed and designed to resist transient hydrostatic pressures; or 2) equipped with a subsurface drainage system that includes backdrains and underdrains. Basement walls located adjacent to City Streets will: 1) need to be designed for vehicle surcharge loads; and 2) likely require temporary shoring to construct. For planning purposes, it can be assumed that shoring will be required where excavation cuts extend below an imaginary plane projecting downward at 45 degrees (1:1, horizontal to vertical) from adjacent existing improvements to be protected. 5.02.3 Foundation Support This report provides geotechnical recommendations for conventional spread footing foundations founded on natural alluvial deposits and/or documented engineered fill. The old near-surface fill and UST backfill described in Sections 4.02.2 and 4.02.3, respectively, of this report are undocumented and not suitable for foundation support. Based on the available data, we judge that total static (i.e. non-earthquake) settlement of spread footings designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report should be less than about 1 inch. Differential settlement between footings one “bay” apart will likely not exceed half of the total settlement (i.e. up to about 1/2 inch). These static settlement estimates are based on judgment and a review of the data from previous borings; laboratory consolidation tests on samples from new onsite borings would be needed in order to refine these estimates further. 5.02.4 Subsurface Drainage This report provides geotechnical recommendations for retaining wall backdrains and slab underdrains designed to flow by gravity to an appropriate discharge. This approach is judged to be feasible for the project as currently envisioned, provided that: 1) there is adequate “fall” between the gravity drains below the ground floor slab and the City storm drain beneath Berkeley Way and/or Shattuck Avenue; and 2) intermittent discharges of groundwater into the storm drain is acceptable to both the City and UCB. Alternatively, portions of the building that are below the anticipated maximum (high) ground water level would need to be waterproof and designed for hydrostatic pressures. Our recommendations are based on a natural maximum (high) groundwater level 5 feet below the adjacent street grades, which is the same groundwater level used in the design of the adjacent EBB. Note that the “design” groundwater level is expressed in terms depth rather than elevation as the groundwater table in this area is not static, but slopes down towards the west (towards San Francisco Bay). The adjacent EBB basement is about 18 to 20 feet deep and was constructed within an excavation that was temporarily dewatered using wellpoints; the permanent basement walls and mat slab are waterproofed and designed for hydrostatic pressures. Given that temporary groundwater pumping at the EBB site has ceased, it is assumed that the EBB Project presently has little influence on natural groundwater level fluctuations at the Berkeley Way site. 5.02.5 Retaining Walls This report provides geotechnical recommendations for retaining walls that are fully drained to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The recommendations provided include unfactored lateral pressure distributions for: 1) active and “at rest” earth loads; 2) vehicle surcharges; and 3) loads caused by earthquake shaking. Our evaluation of seismically induced lateral earth pressures on restrained (fixed) basement walls is based upon the conclusions presented in Sitar, Mikola and Candia (2012). We utilized the simplified method proposed by Seed and Whitman (1970) to calculate the dynamic force increment, which converted into a triangular earth pressure distribution such that the resultant force is applied at 1/3H above the base of the wall. We then express the dynamic increment as an equivalent fluid pressure, which we recommend adding to the equivalent fluid pressure provided for the “active” lateral earth

DRAFT

Page 14 of 25

 

pressure case. In calculating the dynamic force increment, we used a pseudo static horizontal acceleration of 0.67g, which is equal to the 475-year return period peak ground acceleration (PGA) value obtained from the CGS (see Section 5.01.2, “Earthquake Ground Shaking”). 5.03 Construction Considerations 5.03.1 Excavation and Shoring We anticipate that soils present at the site can be excavated using conventional heavy earth-moving equipment. However, subsurface obstructions may be encountered during excavation related to previous buildings and other onsite improvements. The near-surface materials may contain bricks, wood and debris that would not be suitable for onsite re-use. Subsurface obstructions such as old footings, concentrations of debris, or floor slabs from old basements, pits or vaults may also be present. The contractor should anticipate that the existing fill materials at the site may include subsurface obstructions that would require equipment capable of cutting steel and/or breaking concrete to remove.. The contractor is responsible for shoring, temporary excavation slopes and the protection of adjacent offsite improvement throughout all phases of construction. All excavations deeper than 4 feet that will be entered by workers will need to be shored or sloped for safety in accordance with the applicable: (1) California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) standards; and (2) any site-specific health and safety protocols and procedures required by UCB. 5.03.2 Dewatering Site excavations may extend below the groundwater level depending upon the conditions present at the time that the work is performed. Groundwater may also be present at shallower depths beneath and adjacent to the site in seepage zones and/or locally perched conditions. Possible groundwater control methods include pumping from sumps at low points within excavations and dewatering wells. The design, permitting, installation, monitoring, and abandonment of site dewatering and discharge systems are the contractor’s responsibility. These responsibilities also include any special regulatory or health and safety requirements that may be associated with the disposal and/or discharge of construction water. This report contains recommendations for permanent retaining wall backdrains and slab underdrains to be installed surrounding and beneath below-grade portions of the building. If as an alternative the building is waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic forces, the contractor should anticipate that groundwater levels will need to be continuously maintained below the bottom of the excavation until sufficient structural weight is available to resist hydrostatic uplift. 5.03.3 Monitoring We recommend that the contractor be required to thoroughly document the condition of nearby buildings, streets, storm drains and sewers by video or other means prior to the commencement of site dewatering and excavation. The contractor should also perform regular surveys during excavation and throughout the period of dewatering to monitor and document any observed settlement of nearby streets and structures. 5.03.4 Wet Weather Construction Although it is possible that construction can proceed during or immediately following the wet winter months, a number of geotechnical problems may occur which may increase costs and cause project delays. Rises in groundwater levels, seepage and other factors may increase site dewatering requirements. The water content of on-site soils may also increase during the winter, making it more difficult to achieve the required levels of compaction. If unshored excavations are left open, caving of the trench walls may occur. We suggest that additional budget be set aside for contingencies, should foundation construction be scheduled to occur in winter or early spring to account for these and other factors.

DRAFT

Page 15 of 25

 

5.03.5 Environmental Considerations Environmental services were not within the scope of this initial geotechnical study. Other than the USTrelated correspondence referenced in Section 4.02.7 “Groundwater,” we did not review any information pertaining to potential chemical constituents and/or hazardous substances in the soils and/or groundwater at the site. Environmental constituents, if present in significant concentrations, could affect soil offhaul and disposal costs, groundwater treatment and discharge costs, worker health and safety protocols and other aspects of the envisioned sitework. In our opinion, UCB’s best interests would be served by an appropriately-scoped environmental study if such a study has not already been conducted for the site. 6.00 6.01

RECOMMENDATIONS General

The following sections present our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the project. If the project design differs significantly from that discussed previously in this report, we should be consulted regarding the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations presented herein, and be provided the opportunity to provide supplemental recommendations, where appropriate. Contractors responsible for the geotechnical aspects of the project should become familiar with the contents of this report and acknowledge:   

The site conditions, as described in this report and the attached Appendices; The construction considerations discussed in Section 5.03 of this report; and Any special UCB project requirements (e.g. safety, monitoring, environmental).

We recommend that these and all other contractor responsibilities be clearly defined in the project plans and specifications. 6.02 Seismic Design 6.02.1 Building Code Seismic Design Parameters Structures at the site should be designed to resist strong groundshaking in accordance with the applicable building codes and local design practice. This section provides seismic design parameters for use with the 2013 California Building Code. The parameters that follow were obtained using the USGS website application http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php by inputting the site coordinates and the ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008). Site Class Definition C = Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock Profile Latitude and Longitude Latitude: 37.87351° Longitude: -122.26789° Mapped Acceleration Parameters (for Site Class B) SS = 2.380g (mapped spectral acceleration at short periods) S1 = 0.990g (mapped spectral acceleration at 1-second period) MCE Spectral Response Accelerations (Mapped Acceleration × Site Coefficient) SMS = 2.380g (MCE spectral acceleration at short periods) SM1 = 1.287g (MCE spectral acceleration at 1-second period) Design Spectral Response Acceleration (MCE Spectral Acceleration × 2/3) SDS = 1.587g (design spectral acceleration at short periods) SD1 = 0.858g (design spectral acceleration at 1-second period)

DRAFT

Page 16 of 25

 

The Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral Response Accelerations are associated with 2 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years level-of-hazard. The Design Spectral Response Accelerations are two-thirds of the MCE values. 6.02.2 UCB Campus Probabilistic Ground Motions In 2000, a suite of probabilistically-derived ground motions were developed for the UCB campus as a whole. This standardized suite of ground motions (response spectra and acceleration time histories) was updated by URS Corporation (URS) in 2003 and again in 2008. The 2008 update (URS 2008) included ground motions for four return periods (72, 475, 949 and 2,475 years). The results for a 475-year return period (10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years) are summarized in the following table. UCB PSHA Ground Motions (Thin Soil Site) 475-year Return Period Spectral Accelerations 0.01-Second Period 0.2-Second Period 1-Second Period 0.85g 2.00g 0.81g If the use of the URS ground motions is being considered, we recommend that the project design team obtain the most current version of the ground motion report directly from UCB. A3GEO would be pleased to consult with the design team pertaining to the applicability of the ground motions to the Berkeley Way site; however, we would also recommend that URS be consulted to verify that any assumptions and/or restrictions pertaining to the application of the ground motions were appropriately considered. 6.03 Spread Footing Foundations 6.03.1 General New spread footings should be designed to bear upon firm, natural undisturbed soil or on appropriately engineered materials (e.g., engineered fill or improved ground). If undocumented fill materials are present below planned footing depths, we recommend that such materials be either: 1) removed under our observation to expose suitable bearing soils and replaced with appropriately engineered materials; or 2) remediated using an approved ground improvement method. Old, near-surface fill and UST backfill are examples of onsite soils that are undocumented. Ground improvement methods that may be appropriate include rammed aggregate piers (also known by the proprietary name “Geopiers”). We recommend that all footings be designed to bear at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent firm soil subgrade. Continuous and isolated spread footings should have minimum widths of 18 inches and 24 inches, respectively. Footings located adjacent to other footings or utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces situated below an imaginary 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical plane projected upward from the bottom of the adjacent footing or utility trench. All footing excavations should be checked by A3GEO for proper depth, bearing, and cleanout prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. Footing excavations should be kept moist and free of loose material and standing water prior to concrete placement. 6.03.2 Footing Bearing Pressures Spread footings bearing on natural undisturbed soil or engineered fill at or below Elevation +195 feet can be designed using the following bearing pressures: Design Pressures for Spread Footings Founded Upon Natural Undisturbed Soil or Engineered Fill at/below Elevation +195 Feet Load Case Bearing Pressure Factor of Safety (psf*) Dead Load Allowable 3000 3.0 Dead Plus Live Load Allowable 4500 2.0 Total Allowable 6000 1.5 Ultimate 9000 1.0 * psf = pounds per square foot

DRAFT

Page 17 of 25

 

Spread footings founded at shallower depths (i.e., above Elevation +195 feet) should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; the following reduced bearing values can be used for preliminary design and cost estimating purposes. Reduced Pressures for Spread Footings Founded Upon Natural Undisturbed Soil or Engineered Fill above Elevation +195 Feet Load Case Bearing Pressure Factor of Safety (psf) Dead Load Allowable 2000 3.0 Dead Plus Live Load Allowable 3000 2.0 Total Allowable 4000 1.5 Ultimate 6000 1.0 Higher bearing pressures could be warranted for footings that bear upon improved ground. If design approaches other than removal and replacement are contemplated, we should be consulted to provide design assistance and supplemental foundation recommendations, as appropriate. 6.03.3 Lateral Resistance Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction along the base of foundations and by passive pressures developing on the sides of below-grade structural elements. Passive resistance can be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This value can be increased by one-third for dynamic loading. Where pavements cover the adjacent ground surface or floor slabs, passive resistance can be assumed to begin at the ground surface. In areas not confined by slabs or pavements, passive resistance should be neglected within 1 foot of the ground surface. A friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used to evaluate frictional resistance along the bottoms of spread footing foundations. The preceding passive and frictional resistance values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5 and can be fully mobilized with deformations of less than 1/2- and 1/4-inch, respectively. 6.04 Basement Retaining Walls 6.04.1 General Basement retaining walls should be designed to resist static lateral pressures, lateral pressures caused by earthquake shaking and any added pressures caused by surcharges. In this report, we provide recommendations for basement retaining walls that are fully drained to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. It should be assumed that, without drainage, groundwater levels at the site may periodically rise to within 5 feet of the ground surface. If basement walls will not be fully drained, we should provide supplemental retaining wall recommendations that account for hydrostatic pressure. 6.04.2 Design Lateral Pressures This section presents lateral earth pressures for the design of permanent basement retaining walls under fully drained conditions. The recommended static earth pressure distribution is based on at-rest earth pressures, which are appropriate for walls that not free to rotate to a degree that would allow active earth pressures to be used. The recommended seismic earth pressure distribution is based on active earth pressures plus a dynamic increment that increases linearly with depth. For both the static and seismic cases, the recommended earth pressure distribution is triangular with a resultant force acting at a height of H/3 above the base of the wall (where H is the total height of retained earth). Design Lateral Pressures for Basement Retaining Walls Loading Condition Lateral Pressure Distribution Static Lateral Earth Pressure 60 psf per foot of depth (60pcf*), triangular Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure 70 psf per foot of depth (70pcf), triangular Surcharge (vehicles) 100 psf, uniform, applied over the upper 10 feet of the wall Surcharge (general) 0.5 times the anticipated surcharge load, uniform * pcf = pounds per cubic foot

DRAFT

Page 18 of 25

 

The lateral pressure distributions presented in the preceding table are unfactored and should be viewed as reasonable approximates of actual lateral pressures under the specified loading conditions. The seismic lateral earth pressure presented is based on an active earth pressure of 40 pcf plus a 30 pcf dynamic increment. We recommend that large and/or concentrated surcharge loads be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; the contractor should be responsible for evaluating and protecting basement walls from all construction-related surcharge loadings. 6.04.3 Retaining Wall Backdrainage Walls that are not designed for hydrostatic pressure should be fully drained. Backdrainage should be provided to within approximately 2 feet of the top of the retained soil using one of the following: 

Prefabricated drainage material or drainage mat (Miradrain or an approved alternative);or



A drain rock layer at least 12 inches in horizontal thickness.

The upper 2 feet of retained soil behind the wall should be backfilled with low permeability soil to limit surface water infiltration into the wall backdrainage system. The ground surface behind the wall should be sloped to drain away from the top of the wall towards a suitable gravity discharge. Prefabricated drainage material should be in direct contact with the retained soil/rock materials behind the wall and should be designed to drain into a perforated plastic pipe or other approved prefabricated drainage conduit. If prefabricated drainage material is used, the elements comprising the wall backdrainage system should be specified and detailed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Drainage material should have sufficient crushing strength to support the expected lateral earth pressures. Drain rock should conform to Caltrans specifications for Class 2 Permeable Material. Alternatively, locally available, clean, ½- to ¾-inch maximum size, open-graded rock could be used, provided it is encapsulated in a non-woven geotextile filter fabric (such as Mirafi 140N or an approved alternative). The Caltrans Class 2 Permeable Material or geotextile-encapsulated open-graded rock should be in direct contact with the retained soil/rock materials behind the wall. Drain rock should drain into a perforated plastic pipe installed (with perforations down) on a 2-inch-thick bed of drain rock. The upslope end of the perforated drain pipe should be extended to near the ground surface with a nonperforated pipe that serves as a cleanout. The pipe/cleanout should be in an accessible location, capped and fitted with an enclosure (Christy box or similar), where appropriate. Water from the backdrainage system should be conveyed in non-perforated collector pipes by gravity to a suitable discharge facility. Perforated and non-perforated plastic pipe used in the drainage system should consist of 4-inch-diameter or larger SDR 35 or Schedule 40 PVC. A moisture barrier or waterproofing should be applied to the exterior of retaining walls in all areas where seepage or moisture transmission through the walls would be considered objectionable. The architect, structural engineer or another qualified design team consultant should specify and detail wall moisture barriers and/or waterproofing and observation during their installation.

DRAFT

Page 19 of 25

 

6.05 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 6.05.1 General Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick, contain steel bar reinforcement, and be constructed on subgrades comprised of natural undisturbed soil or documented engineered fill that are confirmed to be uniformly firm and non-yielding. We recommend that all interior slabs-on-grade be directly underlain by a moisture retarder to reduce the potential for vapor transmission through the slab. As previously noted, we recommend assuming that without drainage, groundwater levels at the site may periodically rise to within 5 feet of the ground surface. Interior concrete slabs-on-grade below this level should also be equipped with an underdrainage system that includes plastic pipes to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. If interior slabs-on-grade below the 5-foot design groundwater depth will not be fully drained, we should provide supplemental recommendations to account for hydrostatic uplift pressures. Interior slabs at depths shallower than 5 feet can be equipped with an underdrainage system or by a moisture retarder that does not include plastic pipes. 6.05.2 Underdrainage System Interior slabs-on-grade below the 5-foot design groundwater depth should be underlain by an underdrainage system that intercepts and drains away groundwater that could otherwise become trapped beneath the building. The underdrainage system should include a continuous layer of compacted Caltrans Class 2 Permeable Material and a system of 4-inch minimum-diameter SDR 35 or Schedule 40 PVC perforated pipes installed in trenches that are contiguous with the underdrainage layer. The continuous layer of permeable material below the slab should be at least 8 inches thick. The trenches should be at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep. The trenches/pipes should be located within 5 feet inside the building perimeter, no more than 15 feet apart and drain (by gravity) to non-perforated collector pipes and an appropriate discharge facility. The perforated pipes should be placed, perforations down, on a 2-inch-thick layer of permeable material. The underdrainage layer should be compacted using a heavy vibratory plate compactor and care should be exercised not to damage the collector pipes during the compaction efforts. The top of the underdrainage layer should be firm, smooth, and uniformly non-yielding. During construction, A3GEO should observe during the compaction and proof rolling of the underdrainage layer. 6.05.3 Moisture Retarder A moisture retarder should be installed beneath all interior concrete slabs unless they are fully waterproofed. If a waterproof barrier is desired, we recommend that a waterproofing consultant be retained to provide appropriate recommendations. We recommend that the moisture retarder consist of a heavy-duty impermeable membrane (Stego® wrap 15-mil or an approved equivalent) installed and taped in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. For slabs with underdrainage, the heavy–duty permeable membrane can be placed directly on the compacted and approved drainage layer. For slabs above the design groundwater depth where underdrainage is omitted, the heavy-duty impermeable membrane should be installed on a minimum 6-inch-thick layer of Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D-1557). Slab subgrades and overlying aggregate layers should be proof-rolled under our observation and confirmed to be uniformly non-yielding prior to the placement of slab reinforcement. Specifications for the slab should require that moisture emission tests be performed prior to the installation of flooring. No flooring should be installed until safe moisture emission levels are recorded for the type of flooring to be used.

DRAFT

Page 20 of 25

 

6.06 Earthwork 6.06.1 Fill Materials General fill can be used as engineered fill, except where non-expansive material is specifically required. The upper 12 inches of material underlying any Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Aggregate Base (AB) pavement sections should consist of non-expansive material. The upper 18 inches of soil beneath concrete slabs that are cast on-grade should also consist of non-expansive material. The granular layer beneath concrete slabs that are cast on-grade can be counted toward the required 18 inches of nonexpansive material. Fill materials should conform to the requirements presented below: General Fill - General fill material should have an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume and should not contain rocks or lumps larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension. Non-Expansive Fill - Non-expansive fill material should:    

Be free of 6-inch plus material with no more than 15 percent of material larger than 2.5 inches; Be free of organic material, debris and environmental contaminants; Have a Plasticity Index of 12 or less; and Have a Liquid Limit of 40 or less.

All proposed fill materials should be approved by A3GEO prior to their use. Some of the materials cleared or excavated from the site may be suitable for re-use as fill, from a geotechnical standpoint, if they can be processed (i.e., by crushing and/or blending) to meet the above requirements. Import material should be evaluated by our firm prior to its importation to the site. 6.06.2 Fill Placement Fill materials should be placed in a manner that minimizes lenses, pockets and/or layers of materials differing substantially in texture or gradation from the surrounding fill materials. The soils should be spread in uniform layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each layer should be compacted using mechanical means in a uniform and systematic manner. The fill should be constructed in layers such that the surface of each layer is nearly level. Fill should be placed and compacted based on the following requirements (per ASTM D-1557 Test Methods): 

General fill should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to between 3 and 5 percent over optimum moisture content and compacted to between 90 and 95 percent relative compaction.



Non-expansive fill containing an appreciable amount of fines (silt and/or clay) should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.



Non-expansive fill that is predominantly granular (sand and/or gravel) should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.

It is possible that the soil to be compacted may be excessively wet or dry depending on the moisture content at the time of construction. If the soils are too wet, they may be dried by aeration or by mixing with drier materials. If the soils are too dry, they may be wetted by the addition of water or by mixing with wetter materials. The contractor should take appropriate precautions (such as temporary bracing or the use of lightweight equipment) when placing and compacting backfill behind retaining walls to avoid overstressing the wall.

DRAFT

Page 21 of 25

 

6.07 Subsurface Utilities, Exterior Flatwork and Pavements 6.07.1 Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be backfilled with fill placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Trenches should be filled by placing a granular layer (shading) beneath and around the pipe, and then 6 to 12 inches of shading should be carefully placed and tamped above the pipe. The remaining portion of the trench should be backfilled with onsite or import soil. The backfill (above shading layers) should be placed and compacted to a minimum relative degree of compaction of 90 percent based on ASTM D-1557. The compaction requirements given above should be considered minimum recommended requirements. If UCB and/or utility company specifications require more stringent backfill requirements, those specifications should be followed. If imported granular soil is used, sufficient water should be added during the trench backfilling operations to prevent the soil from “bulking” during compaction. All compaction operations should be performed by mechanical means only. We recommend against jetting. Where granular backfill is used in utility trenches, we recommend an impermeable plug or mastic sealant be used where utilities pass beneath shallow improvements (e.g. pavements, slabs, shallow foundations) to minimize the potential for free water or moisture to affect any underlying or adjacent expansive soil materials. Finally, because of the potential for collapse of trench walls, we recommend the contractor carefully evaluate the stability of all trenches and use temporary shoring, where appropriate. The design and installation of the temporary shoring should be wholly the responsibility of the contractor. In addition, all state and local regulations (including any UCB-specific regulations) governing safety around such excavations should be carefully followed. 6.07.2 Exterior Slabs-on-Grade We recommend exterior slabs-on-grade be supported on a minimum of 18 inches of non-expansive material. Subgrades beneath future slabs-on-grade should be proof-rolled under our observation and confirmed to be uniform and non-yielding prior to the placement of the slab reinforcement. Concrete slabs that may be subject to vehicle loadings should be designed in accordance with Section 6.07.4, “Rigid Pavements.” Slab reinforcing should be provided in accordance with the anticipated use and loading of the slab. We recommend that exterior slabs-on-grade be at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with steel bar reinforcement. Exterior slabs should be structurally independent from buildings and be free floating. Score cuts or construction joints should be provided and minor movement and cracking of the slab should be expected. Steps to the building from exterior slab areas should include a gap between the steps and the building foundations. The recommendations presented above, if properly implemented, should help reduce the frequency and magnitude of exterior slab cracking. 6.07.3 Flexible Pavements Flexible asphalt concrete (AC) pavements may be used for parking areas and driveways. We developed the following recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices using the Caltrans R-value design method for flexible pavements. The sections below are based on an assumed subgrade R-value of 30 for non-expansive material. The R-value of the non-expansive material beneath the aggregate base should be confirmed during construction (R-values significantly higher than 30 could be used to substantiate a revised thinner and potentially more economical flexible pavement section design).

DRAFT

Page 22 of 25

 

Flexible Pavement Thickness Design for Subgrade R-Value = 30 Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete Caltrans Class 2 Total (inches) Aggregate Base Thickness (inches) (inches) 4 2 6 8 5 3 6 9 6 3 9 12 7 3 12 15 We recommend the aggregate base be underlain by at least 12 inches of non-expansive material to reduce adverse expansive soil effects and that this layer extend at least 3 feet beyond the outside pavement edge unless a deepened curb or other moisture cutoff (at least 24 inches deep) is provided. The assumed traffic indices of 4.0 and 5.0 are commonly used for automobile and light truck parking areas and access driveways, respectively. Traffic indices of 6.0 and 7.0 are commonly used for moderate truck access and parking areas. A traffic study has not been conducted by our firm for this project and our opinion regarding the applicability of the assumed traffic indices is experience-based and judgmental. The project civil engineer should choose the appropriate traffic indices for the pavement areas of the site and then use the given section for that traffic index. The upper 6 inches of subgrade beneath planned pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction per ASTM D-1557. Pavement subgrades should be proofrolled and confirmed to be uniformly firm and non-yielding prior to the placement of aggregate base. Aggregate base for use in pavements should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base. The aggregate base used in pavement sections should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557. 6.07.4 Rigid Pavements Rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements may also be used in driveway/loading areas. This section provides recommendations for Caltrans jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP), which is engineered with longitudinal and transverse joints to control where cracking occurs. JPCPs do not contain steel reinforcement, other than tie bars and dowel bars. The project civil engineer should design and detail the JPCP pavement per Caltrans specifications. We developed the following pavement thickness design using the Caltrans R-value design method for rigid pavements and an assumed traffic index. The section below is for subgrade soils with an R-value between 10 and 40. The R-value of the non-expansive material beneath the aggregate base should be confirmed during construction (R-values significantly higher than 40 could be used to substantiate a revised thinner and potentially more economical rigid pavement section design). Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Thickness Design Caltrans Class 2 Total Traffic Index Portland Cement Aggregate Base Thickness Concrete (inches) (inches) (inches) <9 9 12 21 In addition, we recommend the aggregate base be underlain by at least 12 inches non-expansive material to reduce adverse expansive soil effects. The non-expansive material should extend at least 3 feet beyond the outside pavement edge unless a deepened curb or other moisture cutoff (at least 24 inches deep) is provided. The upper 6 inches of subgrade beneath planned pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction per ASTM D-1557. Pavement subgrades should be proofrolled and confirmed to be uniformly firm and non-yielding prior to the placement of aggregate base. Aggregate base for use in pavements should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base. The

DRAFT

Page 23 of 25

 

aggregate base used in pavement sections should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557. 6.08 Future Geotechnical Services 6.08.1 Design Consultation and Plan Reviews We recommend that we provide geotechnical consultation to UCB and the project team during the design phase in order to: (1) check that the design recommendations presented in this report are appropriately incorporated into the project plans and specifications; and (2) provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations, as needed. We recommend that we review the project plans and specifications as they are being developed so that we may provide timely input. We should also perform a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final plans and specifications, the results of which we should document in a formal plan review letter. 6.08.2 Review of Contractor Requests and Submittals During the bidding and construction phases, we should review all Requests for Clarification (RFCs) and Requests for Information (RFIs) that are geotechnical in nature. We recommend that we also review all geotechnical submittals from the contractor, including (but not necessarily limited to) those pertaining to shoring, dewatering, excavation/grading and geotechnical materials. 6.08.3 Construction Observation and Testing The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon interpretations and data obtained from our test borings and geophysical survey. These interpretations and data pertain to specific locations at specific times; the nature and extent of any subsurface variations present may therefore not become evident until construction. If variations then become apparent, it will be necessary to re-examine the recommendations of this report. It is critical that we be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the construction phases of the work in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The scope of our construction-phase observation and testing services should include (but not necessarily be limited to) site preparation, shoring installation, mass excavation, footing excavations, fill placement and compaction, retaining wall construction, pavement and slab-on-grade subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of aggregate base, and utility installations. 7.00

LIMITATIONS

This draft report has been prepared for the exclusive use of UCB Capital Projects and their consultants for specific application to the proposed Berkeley Way project in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This draft report was prepared in parallel with a concurrent conceptual-level project study by UCB’s Architect-Engineer consultant team. The purpose of this draft report was to provide preliminary information for conceptual design and cost estimating purposes. At the time of this report, foundation depths, layouts, loads and performance objectives were not known. As currently envisioned, this draft report would be finalized once more information about the project becomes available. Accordingly, this draft report is not intended to be used for final design. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, the passing of time will likely change the conditions of the existing property due to natural processes or the works of man. In addition, due to legislation or the broadening of knowledge, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partly, by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of three years without being reviewed by this office.

DRAFT

Page 24 of 25

 

8.00

REFERENCES

Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc. (AKA), 2010a, “Geotechnical Investigation Report, Helios West, Project No. 12313D, Hearst Avenue at Oxford Street, Berkeley, California, consulting report dated February 5, 2010. AKA, 2010b, “Construction Observation and Testing Services, Bid Package 1 Demolition and Site Preparation, Helios Energy Research Facility West, Project No, 12313D, Hearst Avenue at Oxford Street, Berkeley, California,” consulting report dated November 5, 2010. Bakun, W.H., 1999, “Seismic Activity of San Francisco Bay region” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (June 1999), 89(3), p 764-784. California Division of Mines and Geology, “1982, Special Studies Zone Map, Oakland West Quadrangle.” California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," published by International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1998. California Geological Survey, 2003, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the Oakland West 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Alameda County, California,” Seismic Hazards Zone Report 081. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000, “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), November, 2000. Graymer, R.W., Moring, B.C., Saucedo, G.J., Wentworth, C.M., Brabb, E.E., and Knudsen, K.L., 2006, “Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region,” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2918. Graymer, R.W., 2000, “Geologic Map and Map Database of the Oakland Metropolitan Area, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco Counties, California,” U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies MF-2342. Jennings, Charles W., and Bryant, William A., 2010, “Fault Activity Map of California,” California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6. Knudsen, Keith L., Sowers, Janet M., Witter, Robert C., Wentworth, Carl M., and Helley, Edward J., 2000, “Description of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County San Francisco Bay Region, California,” U.S. Geological Survey, Part 3 of Open File Report 00-444. Lienkaemper, J.J., 1992, “Map of Recently Active Traces of the Hayward Fault, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California,” United States Geological Survey, Map MF-2196. Radbruch, Dorothy H., 1957, “Areal and Engineering Geology of the Oakland West Quadrangle,” U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations, Map I-239. Seed, R.B., Dickenson, S.E., Riemer, M.F., Bray, J.D., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., Idriss, I.M., Kayen, R.E., Kropp, A., Harder, L.F., Jr., and Power, M.S., 1990, “Preliminary Report on the Principal Geotechnical Aspects of the October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta Earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report EERC 90-05. Sitar, N., Mikola, R., and Candia, G. (2012), “ Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls,” Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice: pp. 335-358. Sowers, Janet M., 1993, “Creek & Watershed Map of Oakland & Berkeley,” Oakland Museum of California, Revised 1995. Thompson & West, 1878, “Official Historical Atlas of Alameda County, California.” U.S. Geological Survey, 1959, Topographic Map of the Oakland West Quadrangle. Photorevised 1968, 1973 and 1980. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2008, “The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): for 2007–2036”: USGS Open-File Report 2007-1437; CGS Special Report 203 and; SCEC Contribution #1138. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG03), 2003, “Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002 to 2031,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-214. Youd, T.L. and Hoose, S.N., 1978, “Historic Ground Failures in Northern California Triggered by Earthquakes,” U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 993.

DRAFT

Page 25 of 25

Plates

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Source: Yahoo Maps

SITE COORDINATES Latitude: 37.87351° Longitude: ‐122.26789°

San Francisco Bay

APPROXIMATE SCALE

0

1 mile

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

2 miles

Plate 1 Vicinity Map

SOURCE: Google Earth, Imagery date: 08/28/2012 

Energy Biosciences  Building  (formerly Helios)

Site S 49th St

Hearst Street

Berkeley Way Interstate 80

University Avenue

UCB Main  Campus

APPROXIMATE SCALE 0

500 feet

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

1000 feet

Plate 2 2012 Aerial Photograph

SOURCE: Google Earth, Imagery date: 10/01/2009

Site Hearst Street

California Department of  Health Services  Building (demolished in 2010)

Berkeley Way

University Avenue

UCB Main  Campus

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 3 2009 Aerial Photograph

San Pablo  Bay

Site

Pacific  Ocean San  Francisco  Bay

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 4 Physiographic Setting

Rodgers  Creek

Green Valley ‐ Concord

Site

Greenville

San  Gregorio

San  Andreas

Hayward

Calaveras

SOURCE:  http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/ faultactivitymap.html Jennings and Bryant, 2010

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 5 CGS Fault Activity Map

SOURCE: Graymer, 2000 ,  USGS MF‐2342 

Site

LOCAL MAP UNITS

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 6 USGS Regional Geologic Map

Qpaf

Site

KJfm Qhaf

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 7 Graymer 2006 Geologic Map

Site

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 8 Berkeley  Constraints Map

Site

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 9 1878 Thompson & West Map

Site

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 10 Berkeley Creek Map

Site

Photo Looking East

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 11 1935 Aerial Photograph

SOURCE: Google Earth, Imagery date: 12/1939

Site

UCB Main  Campus

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 12 1939 Aerial Photograph

Site

Former DHS  Building

Looking west  from DHS  Building  Basement  Excavation

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 13 DHS Building and Excavation

Looking  Southwest  toward Site   from EBB  Building  Excavation

Looking  Northeast  Away from Site  toward EBB  Building  Excavation

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Plate 14 EBB Construction Photos

Figures

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

NORT

H

UC GR ID

1101-11A BERKELEY WAY PROJECT

A

A'

(East)

(West)

220

220 BORING B-3 (PROJECTED 8'N) BORING B-1 (PROJECTED 7'S)

Existing Sidewalk

BORING B-2

200

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? 02/2014

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

A:\A3GEO Projects\1101 - UCB\1101-11A Berkeley Way Project\A3GEO Figures\CrosssSections.dwg

?

?

?

?

?

BOH = 34.0'

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

02/2014

?

?

?

?

?

?

200

180

02/2014

?

?

02/2014

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

BOH = 38.5'

?

SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE BEDROCK (FRANCISCAN COMPLEX)

BOH = 41.0'

160

140 0

?

?

02/2014

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

2/27/2014 8:58 AM

? ?

02/2014

180

?

?

Fill

?

?

?

?

?

?

ELEVATION (FEET)

ELEVATION (FEET)

Fill

Fill

160

140 50

100

150 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET)

200

250

LEGEND: FILL FINE GRAINED SOILS (SILTS AND CLAYS) COARSE GRAINED SOILS (SANDS AND GRAVELS) BEDROCK (SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE) CONCEPTUAL DEPTH OF PROPOSED EXCAVATION (+195 FEET) DEPTH OF FIRST ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER DEPTH OF GROUNDWATER UPON COMPLETION OF DRILLING

0

NOTES: 1. SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION. 2. CROSS SECTION REPRESENTS IDEALIZED CONDITIONS BASED ON LIMITED SUBSURFACE DATA.

20 SCALE (FEET)

40

2

CROSS SECTION A-A'

1101-11A BERKELEY WAY PROJECT

B

B'

(West)

(East)

220

BORING B-11

A:\A3GEO Projects\1101 - UCB\1101-11A Berkeley Way Project\A3GEO Figures\CrosssSections.dwg

Fill

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF DHS BUILDING BASEMENT (BACKFILLED)

200

200

02/2014 02/2014

180

180

160

ELEVATION (FEET)

ELEVATION (FEET)

Existing Sidewalk

2/27/2014 3:42 PM

220

FORMER DHS BUILDING

160

BOH = 43.5' SANDSTONE BEDROCK (FRANCISCAN COMPLEX)

140 0

140 50

100

150 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET)

200

250

LEGEND: FILL FINE GRAINED SOILS (SILTS AND CLAYS) COARSE GRAINED SOILS (SANDS AND GRAVELS) BEDROCK (SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE) CONCEPTUAL DEPTH OF PROPOSED EXCAVATION (+195 FEET) DEPTH OF FIRST ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER DEPTH OF GROUNDWATER UPON COMPLETION OF DRILLING

0

NOTES: 1. SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION. 2. CROSS SECTION REPRESENTS IDEALIZED CONDITIONS BASED ON LIMITED SUBSURFACE DATA.

20 SCALE (FEET)

40

3

CROSS SECTION B-B'

1101-11A BERKELEY WAY PROJECT

C

C'

(West)

(East)

FORMER DHS BUILDING

220

220 BORING B-9 (PROJECTED 5'N)

BORING B-10 (PROJECTED 8'S)

BORING B-12

200

Fill

Fill

?

?

?

?

?

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF DHS BUILDING BASEMENT (BACKFILLED)

?

?

?

200

?

180

180

ELEVATION (FEET)

ELEVATION (FEET)

Existing Sidewalk

2/27/2014 8:58 AM

A:\A3GEO Projects\1101 - UCB\1101-11A Berkeley Way Project\A3GEO Figures\CrosssSections.dwg

02/2014 02/2014

02/2014

160

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

50

100

150 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET)

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

BOH = 38.0' SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE BEDROCK (FRANCISCAN COMPLEX)

BOH = 36.5'

BOH = 40.8' SANDSTONE BEDROCK

140 0

?

200

160

250

140 300

LEGEND: FILL FINE GRAINED SOILS (SILTS AND CLAYS) COARSE GRAINED SOILS (SANDS AND GRAVELS) BEDROCK (SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE) CONCEPTUAL DEPTH OF PROPOSED EXCAVATION (+195 FEET) DEPTH OF FIRST ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER DEPTH OF GROUNDWATER UPON COMPLETION OF DRILLING

0

NOTES: 1. SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION. 2. CROSS SECTION REPRESENTS IDEALIZED CONDITIONS BASED ON LIMITED SUBSURFACE DATA.

20 SCALE (FEET)

40

4

CROSS SECTION C-C'

Appendix A Logs of Borings  (B‐1 through B‐3 and B‐9 through B‐12)

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SECONDARY DIVISIONS

MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON NO.200 SIEVE

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

PRIMARY DIVISIONS

CRITERIA *

GROUP SYMBOL

GROUP NAME

Cu ≥ 4 AND 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 A

GW

Well-graded gravel

Cu < 4 AND/OR 1 > Cc > 3

GP

Poorly-graded gravel

GRAVELS WITH FINES - MORE

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH

GM

Silty gravel

THAN 12% FINES

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

GC

Clayey gravel

CLEAN SANDS

Cu ≥ 6 AND 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3

SW

Well-graded sand

CLEAN GRAVELS LESS THAN 5% FINES

GRAVELS

MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE

SANDS

LESS THAN 5% FINES

50% OR MORE OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE

SANDS WITH FINES - MORE

50% OR MORE PASSES THE NO.200 SIEVE

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

THAN 12% FINES

INORGANIC

SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50%

SM

Silty sand

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

SC

Clayey sand

PI > 7 AND PLOTS ON OR ABOVE "A" LINE

CL

Lean clay

PI < 4 OR PLOTS BELOW "A" LINE

ML

Silt

OL

Organic Clay & Organic Silt

PI PLOTS ON OR ABOVE "A" LINE

CH

Fat clay

PI PLOTS BELOW "A" LINE

MH

Elastic silt

OH

Organic Clay & Organic Silt

PT

Peat

LIQUID LIMIT - NOT DRIED

INORGANIC

LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR MORE

SP

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH

LIQUID LIMIT - OVEN DRIED

ORGANIC

SILTS AND CLAYS

Cu < 6 AND/OR 1 > Cc > 3

Poorly-graded sand

LIQUID LIMIT - OVEN DRIED

ORGANIC

LIQUID LIMIT - NOT DRIED

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

< 0.75

< 0.75

PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR

*

REFERENCE: Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487-06)

Criteria may be done on visual basis, not necessarily based on lab testing A – Cu = D60/D100 & Cc = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60)

GRAIN SIZES 200 SILTS AND CLAYS

U. S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE 40 10

CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 3/4" 3" 12"

4

SAND FINE

MEDIUM

GRAVEL COARSE

FINE

COARSE

COBBLES

ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOLS Standard Penetration Test Split Spoon (2-inch O.D.)

INDEX TESTS LL - Liquid Limit (%) (ASTM D 4318-05) PI - Plasticity Index (%) (ASTM D 4318-05) -200 - Passing No. 200 Sieve (%) (ASTM D 1140-00)

Modified California Sampler (3-inch O.D.)

STRENGTH TESTS PP TV UC TXUU

- Field Pocket Penetrometer test of unconfined compressive strength (tsf) - Field Torvane test of shear strength (psf) - Laboratory unconfined compressive strength (psf) (ASTM D 2166-06) - Laboratory unconsolidated, undrained triaxial test of undrained shear strength (psf) (ASTM D 2850-03a) MISCELLANEOUS ATOD psf/tsf psi

BOULDERS

Thin-walled Sampler Tube (either Pitcher or Shelby) (3-inch O.D.) Rock Core

- At time of drilling - pounds per square foot / tons per square foot - pounds per square inch (indicates relative force required to advance Shelby tube sampler)

Bag Sample Groundwater Level

ALAN KROPP

KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS HELIOS WEST Berkeley, California

& ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants

PROJECT NO.

DATE

2500-10

October 2009

FIGURE

A1

CONSOLIDATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS; usually determined from unweathered samples. Largely dependent on cementation. U = unconsolidated P = poorly consolidated M = moderately consolidated W = well consolidated

BEDDING OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK Splitting Property Massive Blocky Slabby Flaggy Shaly or platy Papery

Thickness Greater than 4.0 feet 2.0 to 4.0 feet 0.2 to 2.0 feet 0.05 to 0.2 feet 0.01 to 0.05 feet Less than 0.01 feet

Stratification Very thick-bedded Thick-bedded Thin-bedded Very thin-bedded Laminated Thinly laminated

FRACTURING Intensity Very little fractured Occasionally fractured Moderately fractured Closely fractured Intensely fractured Crushed

Size of Pieces in Feet Greater than 4.0 feet 1.0 to 4.0 feet 0.5 to 1.0 feet 0.1 to 0.5 feet 0.05 to 0.1 feet Less than 0.05 feet

HARDNESS 1. Soft - Reserved for plastic material alone. 2. Low Hardness - Can be gouged deeply or carved easily by a knife blade. 3. Moderately Hard - Can be readily scratched by a knife blade; scratch leaves a heavy trace of dust and is readily visible after the powder has been blown away. 4. Hard - Can be scratched by a knife blade with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often faintly visible. 5. Very Hard - Cannot be scratched by a knife blade; leaves a metallic streak

STRENGTH 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Plastic - Very low strength. Friable - Crumbles easily by rubbing with fingers. Weak - An unfractured specimen of such material will crumble under light hammer blows. Moderately Strong - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows before breaking. Strong -Specimen will withstand a few heavy ringing hammer blows and will yield with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments. 6. Very Strong -Specimen will resist heavy ringing hammer blows and will yield with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments.

WEATHERING - the physical and chemical disintegration and decomposition of rocks and minerals by natural processes such as oxidation, reduction, hydration, solution, carbonation, and freezing and thawing. D.

Deep - Moderate to complete mineral decomposition; extensive disintegration; deep and thorough discoloration; many fractures, all extensively coated or filled with oxides, carbonates and/or clay or silt. M. Moderate - Slight change or partial decomposition of minerals; little disintegration; cementation little to unaffected. Moderate to occasionally intense discoloration. Moderately coated fractures. L. Little - No megascopic decomposition of minerals; little or no effect on normal cementation. Slight and intermittent, or localized discoloration. Few stains on fracture surfaces. F. Fresh - Unaffected by weathering agents. No disintegration or discoloration. Fractures usually less numerous than joints.

ALAN KROPP

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES CRITERIA FOR ROCK DESCRIPTIONS HELIOS WEST Berkeley, California

& ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants

PROJECT NO. 2500-10

DATE October 2009

FIGURE

A2

Appendix B Laboratory Test Data

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

#200

#140

#100

#60

#40

#30

#20

#10

#4

3/8 in.

1/2 in.

3/4 in.

1 in.

1-1/2 in.

2 in.

3 in.

6 in.

Particle Size Distribution Report 100

90

80

PERCENT FINER

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 0 500

100

10

1

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.1

0.01

0.001

% COBBLES

% GRAVEL

% SAND

% SILT

% CLAY

0.0

26.3

35.0

21.1

17.6

SIEVE

PERCENT

SPEC.*

PASS?

SIZE

FINER

PERCENT

(X=NO)

1.5 1 3/4 3/8

in. in. in. in. #4 #10 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 0.0423 mm. 0.0305 mm. 0.0197 mm. 0.0117 mm. 0.0083 mm. 0.0059 mm. 0.0042 mm. 0.0030 mm. 0.0022 mm. 0.0013 mm.

100.0 81.8 78.7 76.9 73.7 66.3 56.0 53.7 50.8 45.0 38.7 34.8 31.8 28.5 25.6 24.8 23.1 21.3 19.6 17.9 15.9

Soil Description Reddish Brown Clayey SAND w/ Gravel

PL=

Atterberg Limits LL=

PI=

D85= 28.1 D30= 0.0244 Cu=

Coefficients D60= 1.01 D15= Cc =

USCS=

Classification AASHTO=

D50= 0.273 D10=

Remarks One large piece of gravel retained on the 1" sieve.

* (no specification provided) Sample No.: Location:

Source of Sample: B-3

COOPER TESTING LABORATORY

Date: Elev./Depth: 12.5-13'

Client: Alan Kropp & Associates Project: Helios West - 2500-10 Project No: 254-127

Figure

#200

#140

#100

#60

#40

#30

#20

#10

#4

3/8 in.

1/2 in.

3/4 in.

1 in.

1-1/2 in.

2 in.

3 in.

6 in.

Particle Size Distribution Report 100

90

80

PERCENT FINER

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 0 500

100

10

1

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.1

0.01

0.001

% COBBLES

% GRAVEL

% SAND

% SILT

% CLAY

0.0

1.3

34.3

37.3

27.1

SIEVE

PERCENT

SPEC.*

PASS?

SIZE

FINER

PERCENT

(X=NO)

3/8 in. #4 #10 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 0.0401 mm. 0.0293 mm. 0.0191 mm. 0.0115 mm. 0.0082 mm. 0.0059 mm. 0.0042 mm. 0.0030 mm. 0.0021 mm. 0.0013 mm.

100.0 98.7 91.7 85.0 83.1 80.8 73.8 64.4 58.2 51.9 45.6 39.3 36.5 34.1 32.5 29.0 27.4 23.5

Soil Description Brown Sandy CLAY

PL=

Atterberg Limits LL=

PI=

D85= 0.600 D30= 0.0033 Cu=

Coefficients D60= 0.0454 D15= Cc =

USCS=

Classification AASHTO=

D50= 0.0263 D10=

Remarks

* (no specification provided) Sample No.: Location:

Source of Sample: B-9

COOPER TESTING LABORATORY

Date: Elev./Depth: 12-12.5'

Client: Alan Kropp & Associates Project: Helios West - 2500-10 Project No: 254-127

Figure

Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test ASTM D-2850

Shear Stress, ksf

4.0

2.0

0.0 0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Total Normal Stress, ksf

Sample 1

Stress-Strain Curves

Sample 2

Moisture % Dry Den,pcf

Sample 3 Sample 4

Void Ratio

6.00

Saturation %

Height in Diameter in

Cell psi Strain %

5.00

Deviator, ksf

Rate %/min

in/min Job No.: Client: Project: Boring: Sample: Depth ft:

Deviator Stress, ksf

4.00

3.00

2.00

Sample # 1 2 3 4 Remarks:

1.00

0.00 0.0

5.0

10.0 Strain, %

15.0

20.0

Sample Data 1 2 3 29.6 20.1 24.3 93.7 105.8 97.9 0.799 0.593 0.722 100.0 91.5 90.8 5.01 5.00 5.00 2.43 2.41 2.41 5.6 6.3 5.6 15.00 15.00 14.40 2.284 3.329 3.084 1.00 1.00 1.05 0.050 0.050 0.053 254-127 Alan Kropp & Associates Helios West - 2500-10 B-2 B-3 B-4 11-11.5 12.5-13 11-11.5 Visual Soil Description

4 17.6 111.0 0.518 91.4 5.00 2.40 6.3 15.70 5.456 1.05 0.053

B-9 12-12.5

Reddish Brown CLAY w/ Sand (Silty) Reddish Brown Clayey SAND w/ Gravel Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY Brown Sandy CLAY

Appendix C Geophysical Survey

BERKELEY WAY PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

UCB Berkeley Way Sheet Index WRNS Project #: 14001.00

Sheet Number G-000 G-001 G-011 G-012 G-101 G-102 G-103 G-104 G-105 G-106 G-109 G-110 C-100 L-100 S-101 S-101A S-101B S-101C S-201 S-202 S-203 S-204 S-205 S-206 S-207 S-208 S-209 S-210 S-301 S-301A S-301B S-301C S-302 S-302A S-302B S-302C AN-001 AS-101 AC-101 AC-102 AC-103 AC-104 AC-105 AC-106 AC-107 AC-108

Date 03/06/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015

03/17/2015

Sheet Name COVER DRAWING INDEX, PROJECT DIRECTORY, PROJECT INFO ZONING DIAGRAM GROSS AREA PLANS EGRESS & OCCUPANCY PLANS - LEVEL 1 EGRESS & OCCUPANCY PLANS - LEVEL 2 EGRESS & OCCUPANCY PLANS - LEVEL 3 EGRESS & OCCUPANCY PLANS - LEVEL 4 EGRESS & OCCUPANCY PLANS - LEVEL 5 EGRESS & OCCUPANCY PLANS - LEVEL 6 (7&8 SIM) EGRESS & OCCUPANCY PLANS - PENTHOUSE PROGRAM DATA SHEET PRELIMINARY GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES LOADING DIAGRAMS LOADING DIAGRAMS FOUNDATION / LEVEL 1 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 2 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 3 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 4 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 5 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 6 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 7 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 8 FRAMING PLAN LEVEL 9 FRAMING PLAN PENTHOUSE ROOF FRAMING PLAN BUILDING SECTIONS BUILDING SECTIONS BUILDING SECTIONS BUILDING SECTIONS SHEARWALL ELEVATIONS SHEARWALL ELEVATIONS SHEARWALL ELEVATIONS SHEARWALL ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, AND ABBREVIATIONS SITE PLAN FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 7 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 8

UCB Berkeley Way Sheet Index WRNS Project #: 14001.00

AC-109 AC-110 A-101 A-102 A-104 A-301 A-302 A-303 A-304 A-321 A-322 A-331 A-332 A-333 A-334 A-801 A-841 M-001 M-002 M-003 M-201 M-202 M-203 M-204 M-204A M-205 M-206 M-207 M-208 M-209 M-209A M-210 M-603 M-605D M-605H M-606 M-607 M-608 P-001 P-002 P-201 P-202 P-203 P-204 P-205 P-206 P-207

03/06/2015 01/23/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/06/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015

03/17/2015

FLOOR PLAN - PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EAST PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING SECTIONS BUILDING SECTIONS BUILDING SECTIONS BUILDING SECTIONS WALL SECTIONS CURTAIN WALL DETAILS MECHANICAL SYMBOLS LISTS, GENERAL NOTES AND SHEET INDEX SCHEDULES SCHEDULES - MECHANICAL (ALTERNATE OPTION 5) FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 - MECHANICAL ENLARGED PLAN - LEVEL 4 MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 7 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 8 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 9 - MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 9 - MECHANICAL (ALTERNATE OPTION 5) ROOF PLAN - MECHANICAL RISER DIAGRAMS - MECHANICAL RISER DIAGRAMS - MECHANICAL RISER DIAGRAMS - MECHANICAL DIAGRAMS - MECHANICAL DIAGRAMS - MECHANICAL (ALTERNATE OPTION 5) DIAGRAMS - VRF PIPING - MECHANICAL PLUMBING SYMBOLS LISTS, GENERAL NOTES AND SHEET INDEX SCHEDULES - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 7 - PLUMBING

UCB Berkeley Way Sheet Index WRNS Project #: 14001.00

P-208 P-209 E-100 E-200 E-301 E-302 E-303 E-304 E-305 E-306 E-307 E-308 E-309

01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015

03/17/2015

FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 8 - PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 9 - PLUMBING ELECTRICAL SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM - NORMAL POWER ELECTRICAL SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM - EMERGENCY POWER ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 7 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 8 ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 9